BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12. 10. 2006 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's appeal under section 374 (3) (a) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 against the order of conviction dated 10. 5. 2006 and order on sentence dated 12. 5. 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner had been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 and had been sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. Besides this, the petitioner was directed to pay compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to the complainant to the tune of Rs 5 lacs and, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that the petitioner had failed to raise any probable defence and failed to rebut the presumption that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of his liability.

( 3 ) THE petitioner had allegedly issued a cheque dated 27. 12. 1999 for a sum of Rs 3,15,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1 (R. P. Gupta and Sons ). Apparently, the cheque was paid in discharge of a debt or liability.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the cheque had been returned by the bank on 22. 1. 2000 with the endorsement that the same had been dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds, the complainant sent a notice dated 28. 1. 2000 (Exhibit PW1/4 ). The factum of receipt of the said notice was not denied by the petitioner and the petitioner sent a detailed reply dated 4. 2. 2000 (Exhibit PW 1/d1)wherein detailed circumstances were indicated showing that the said cheque was misused by the complainant and no such amount was due from the petitioner. The case of the petitioner with regard to the said cheque was that the petitioner and the complainant had business dealings since 1995-96 whereby the petitioner was supplying the goods from time to time to the complainant on receipt of payments. It was further indicated in the reply that as the petitioner and the complainant developed good business relations an account was opened on the introduction of the complainant at the bank in Delhi and since the dealings required the petitioner to make repeated transactions, the cheque book and pass book of the said account were also maintained by the complainant. It was submitted that certain blank signed cheques were also handed over to the complainant and it is one of these cheques which was filled in by the complainant which formed the subject matter of the present case.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reply or response to this letter dated 4. 2. 2000 (Exhibit PW1/d1) was received by the petitioner. He submits that in the wake of this letter the complaint filed by the complainant ought to have spelt out the details of the liability, in purported discharge of which the cheque in question was issued. He referred to the complaint. The first paragraph of which reads as under:

1. That the accused to discharge liabilities of repayments of the amounts taken by him issued a cheque bearing no. 568558, dated 27. 12. 99 for rs. 3,15,000/-drawn on Punjab National bank, Khari Baoli, Delhi-6 as part payment. "

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above paragraph is the only statement contained in the complaint with regard to the alleged liability of the petitioner. He submitted that no details whatsoever have been indicated as to what the liabilities were, what were the "amounts" for which the said cheque was issued for part payments, on which dates the amounts were taken by the petitioner. Nor were the exact "amounts" taken by the petitioner mentioned. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, the complaint was completely vague and bereft of an