1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.702 OF 2009 Krushna Marutirao Chafle ...Applicant Vs. M/s. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. P.P.Bhosale, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 14TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.The charge against the applicant was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Complaint No.1803/SS/05. The learned Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 2,03,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2.The cheque which came to be dishonoured was of Rs. 2,02,571/- dated 13 th April 2005. It is the complainant s case that he was the dealer of the 2 complainant in respect of the products of the complainant. 3.He issued a cheque by way of security. The security was to secure the payment under the contract with the complainant as a dealer. The applicant must first show how he has discharged his liabilities under his contract of dealership. If the applicant shows that all the liabilities are discharged under that contract the cheque given by way of security would not be enforced. If the applicant does not show that that liability is discharged, the cheque given by way of security must secure the applicant for the liability. 4.The applicant has not shown the discharge of liability under the contract. The learned Magistrate has considered this fact. 5.In Appeal being Appeal No.287/2009 the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the trial Court judgment and remanded the matter for leading evidence by both the parties and then to decide afresh. The accused is, therefore, given an opportunity to be able to rebut the statutory presumption under the admittedly drawn and issued cheque by him. The accused can rebut the presumption by producing documents showing how he has discharged the liability under his dealership contract 3 with the complainant. Instead of availing of that opportunity the accused has filed this Revision Application. 6.Under the order of the learned Sessions Judge, which is impugned dated 12 th November 2009 the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 14 th December 2009. The applicant was delivered the copy of the impugned judgment on 26 th November 2009. He has applied for reliefs on the last date. 7.The Criminal Revision Application has no merits. Hence, dismissed. 8.The learned Magistrate shall proceed as directed by the Sessions Court under the impugned order dated 12 th November 2009. The applicant as well as the complainant shall comply with the order. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)