JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

2. Both these revisions arise from the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Aurangabad, passed in S.C.C. No.1216 of 2017 dated 08.02.2019. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year, and was directed to pay the compensation of seven lacs. The complainant, as well as the accused, had impugned the said judgment before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The criminal appeal preferred by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation was registered as Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2019, and the appeal preferred by the accused was registered as Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2019. Both appeals were decided on 13.06.2022.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to reduce the corporal sentence from one year to nine months. However, he denied the prayer of the complainant to enhance the compensation. Hence, the complainant and the accused are before the Court under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Heard the respective counsels at length.

5. The complainant has a case he and the complainant were familiar. He had invested the money with the accused as he was developing his plot through the developer for the construction of the apartment. The accused won his confidence. Hence, he had paid Rs.6,50,000/- to the accused from time to time. However, the accused failed to start the project. Therefore on demand, the accused had issued three cheques of different amounts and dates towards legally enforceable debt. The accused failed to arrange with the Bank to honour the cheques. The cheques were dishonoured for the reason ‘stop payment’. Hence after issuing the statutory notice, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed.

6. The accused came with a defence, as appeared from the cross-examination of the witnesses, that he never issued the cheques in dispute to the complainant. The cheques in the disputes were lost. Hence, he stopped the payment by writing a letter to the Bank. However, he did not deny the signature over the cheques in dispute. He further came up with a case that since he did not completely fill up the cheques, it was a sort of material alteration in the negotiable instrument. Therefore, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not stand.

7. Learned senior counsel for the accused read the judgments and some portions of the depositions of the complainant and referred to the complaints lodged to the police, which were admittedly addressed by the father of the applicant. He has vehemently argued that the defence of the accused has not been correctly appreciated. The complainant did not discharge the burden that the cheques were issued towards legally enforceable debt. He would argue that snatching and losing are synonymous. Hence, bare using the word snatching would not be sufficient to disbelieve the reasons given in a letter to the Bank for stopping payment. Hence, the impugned judgments and orders are illegal, erroneous and incorrect.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant would argue that the accused never denied his signature over the cheques in dispute. Hence, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was attracted. Delivering the blank signed cheques does not absolve the accused from liability. His defence was not consistent. On the one hand, he came with a defence that the accused had snatched the cheques. However, while addressing the letter to the Bank, he mentioned that the cheques in dispute were lost. Therefore, both Courts correctly believed the complainant and held the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He would submit that the complainant had paid his entire retiral money to the applica