1. Petitioner's conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stand affirmed vide impugned order of 7th March, 2013.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner had assailed the impugned order on the following five grounds:—

(i) MM grossly allowed the applica¬tion under Section 311 Cr. P.C.

(ii) Ex. CW1/F is a document fabri¬cated by respondent-complainant and the same has been smuggled on the judi¬cial record at a later stage.

(iii) CW2-complainant has admitted that Ex.CW1/F was not prepared or signed by him and he has not produced the person who prepared the same.

(iv) Legal Notice Ex.CW1/C was not served to the petitioner. No proof of its service has been placed on record and it is own case of respondent that notice had been returned unserved.

(v) Cheque has been issued by Na¬tional Sales Corporation and it cannot be attributed to petitioner.

3. It would be pertinent to note that petitioner has not disputed the signatures on the cheque in question and so, statutory pre¬sumption arises against petitioner. Whether petitioner has been able to rebut statutory presumption raised against him, is the moot question which is required to be co