IMPORTANT POINT
Non-filing of Income Tax Return by itself would not mean that complainant had no source of income and no adverse inference can be drawn in this regard only because of absence of Income Tax Return.

G.S. Ahluwalia, J.—This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment and punishment order dated 12th October, 2018 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2018, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the revisionist against the judgment and punishment order dated 23rd January, 2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Regular Criminal Case No.5068 of 2014, by which the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and punishment of admonition was given as well as compensation of Rs.12,69,000/- has been awarded against her.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the revisionist under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on the allegation that in the month of June, 2013, the revisionist had obtained a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from him and assured that she would refund the said amount within a period of six months. It was further alleged that in lieu of the said amount, the revisionist had given a cheque, dated 28th January, 2014 drawn on Andhra Bank, Madhoganj, Gwalior bearing no.119954. The said cheque was deposited by the respondent in the bank account of AXIS Bank, Lashkar, Gwalior on 3rd February, 2014 but the same stood dishonoured by the Bank vide memorandum dated 4th February, 2014 because the bank account was blocked. It is further alleged in the complaint that thereafter, a statutory notice dated 13th September, 2014 was sent by the respondent to the revisionist for payment of cheque amount but the same was returned back with an endorsement that “the addressee has left the premises”. Thereafter, the respondent filed a private complaint before the Trial Magistrate.

3. It was the defence of the revisionist that she did not take any loan amount from the respondent but in fact, the respondent and one Pankaj had stolen the cheque of the revisionist from the shop of her husband and accordingly, instructions were given to the Bank to block the account. The revisionist (DW2) had examined herself as a defence witness under Section 315 of CrPC along with another defence witness, namely, Anil Kumar Gupta (DW1), the husband of the revisionist.

4. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court convicted the revisionist for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and passed the sentence of admonition as well as directed for payment of compensation of Rs.12,69,000/-.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of punishment passed by the trial Court, the revisionist filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which too has been dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment and order of punishment dated 12th October, 2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2018.

6. Challenging the conviction recorded by both the Courts below, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist that the respondent has failed to prove his source of income. The respondent was not known to the revisionist. Therefore, there was no occasion for her to take loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent. No notice was ever served on the revisionist and the respondent has failed to prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist that the respondent has failed to prove that the cheque in question bears the signature of the revisionist and when the revisionist had appeared as a defence witness, then no question was put to her with regard to loan transaction. To buttress his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of John K. Abraham vs. Simon C. Abraham and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 236: (2014) 1 Crimes 66: (2013) 8 Supreme 691, K. Subramani vs. K. Damodara Naidu, (2015) 1 SCC 99: (2015) 1 Crimes 48: (2014) 8 Sup