ORDER :

1. In this case the petitioner is the complainant, whereas, respondent is accused. This criminal revision is filed against the order dated 01.04.2014 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Cr. Appeal No. 43/2014, whereby criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, in Complaint Case No. 361/2011 has been affirmed whereby the complaint case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’) by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The complainant/petitioner filed a complaint case before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur against the respondent/accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act for dishonour of cheque bearing No. 697158 dated 11.10.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- drawn on I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Bilaspur (C.G.).

3. The substance of allegations and assertions of the complaint case before the trial Court was that the parties are known to each other and on account of some necessity, the respondent took loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- from the complainant and in order to discharge said legal liability, alleged cheque was issued on 03.08.2011 bearing No. 697160 drawn on I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Bilaspur. The said cheque was presented on 04.08.2011 and which returned dishonored with the remarks “stop payment.” A legal demand notice was sent to the respondent on 10.08.2011. Despite service, the respondent failed to repay the cheque amount within the stipulated time period and hence, complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed. The substance of accusation was stated to the respondent, who abjured it and pleaded non-guilty. The complainant examined himself as PW-1, whereas respondent examined Dr. Kumari Sunanda Dhenge, Handwriting Expert, as DW-1, himself as DW-2, Samir Raut Rai, Sub-Branch Manager, as DW-3 and Apoorva Tiwari, Agriculturist, as DW-4.

4. The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 21.09.2012 acquitted the respondent and dismissed the complaint case filed by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.09.2012 before the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) and same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2012 by the said court holding it as not maintainable.

6. The petitioner preferred Cr. Rev. No. 779/2012 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 15.04.2013, set aside the order passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur dated 23.11.2012 and remitted back the matter to decide the criminal appeal on merits in accordance with law.

7. The learned Sessions Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner mainly on two grounds: firstly, 15 days mandatory time period was not granted to the respondent to make payment of the cheque amount from the date of receipt of the demand notice as required under Section 138 (c) of N.I. Act and further, the complainant could not prove the date of transaction and no statement has been made in this regard. The learned lower appellate court has affirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a loan was taken by the respondent from the petitioner, therefore, the cheque was issued by the respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- and according to Section 139 of N.I. Act there would be presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, the bank informed the petitioner that the cheque has been dishonoured on account of ‘stop payment’ which also amounts dishonour of cheque and the legal demand notice was sent to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments in case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Another, (2007) 6 SCC 555, Narsingh Das Tapadia vs. Goverdhan Das Partani and Another, (2000) 7 SCC 183, M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat and Othe