ASHUTOSH KUMAR , J.

1. The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in CC No.3771/01/11 under Section 138 of the N.I Act and has been directed to undergo RI for six months, pay a compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- to the complainant and in case of failure in paying the said amount, to further suffer SI for two months by judgment and order dated 20.02.2014 and 23.07.2015. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction of the Trial Court vide Crl.Appeal No.53/2015 before the District and Sessions Judge, West Delhi. The Appellate Court vide order dated 07.09.2015 affirmed the judgment and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

2. Hence the present revision petition.

3. Respondent No.2 Smt.Pushpa Gupta, proprietor of M/s.D.V.Trading Company through her special power of attorney holder and son, Manan Gupta, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act alleging that she had business relationship with the petitioners and that she had started a franchise showroom of the petitioners at Paschim Vihar. Since the showroom could not be run properly, it had to be shut down. As per the agreement between the complainant and the petitioners, towards full and final settlement of all dues, the petitioners had issued a cheque bearing No.029731 dated 30.07.2011 for Rs.8,75,307 drawn on Axis Bank, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi in favour of the firm of the complainant. When the aforesaid cheque was presented before the bank for encashment, the same was returned for insufficiency of funds. A legal notice was sent to the petitioners on 17.08.2011 at two addresses namely at Mansarovar Garden and Ashok Vihar but the same was refused to be accepted. The notice sent at Mansarovar Garden address was refused to be accepted by the petitioners but the notice at Ashok Vihar was delivered to the petitioners on 19.08.2011. Despite service of notice, the petitioners did not pay the cheque amount.

4. The aforesaid complaint has been signed by the complainant Smt.Pushpa Gupta and her son and power of attorney holder, Manan Gupta. An affidavit accompanied the complaint of Manan Gupta, the Special Power of Attorney holder.

5. Petitioner No.2 was produced in custody pursuant to the summons as he was in judicial custody in some other case. Notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was served upon him. No prayer was made on his behalf for summoning and examining either the complainant or her son, the power of attorney holder. The petitioner was thereafter directed to lead defence evidence. No evidence was led by the petitioner despite several adjournments.

6. The evidence of the complainant had been tendered through her special power of attorney by way of an affidavit (Ex.CW-1/1). Since no material came forward, the requirement of recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also waived.

7. The Trial Court, thereafter, on the admission of the accused about his signature on the cheque in question held that the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act operated against him and the same could not be rebutted.

8. A complaint was raised by the petitioner that he had not been served with any demand notice and, therefore, no cause of action accrued against him. The aforesaid contention was seriously disputed on behalf of the complainant. The plea of no opportunity to him for cross examining the complainant or for leading defence evidence was not accepted by the Trial Court. Thus the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

9. The Appellate Court took note of the fact that an application under Section 145(2) of the N.I Act was filed by the petitioner at the time when the case was listed for final arguments and, therefore, the prayer made on his behalf was rejected by the Trial Court on 09.09.2013. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by way of criminal revision No.134/2013 before ASJ