The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 138 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the reliance on the case law to establish the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred as Cr.P.C.) against judgment dated 19.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) was upheld. Vide judgment dated 26.02.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and vide order on sentence dated 25.03.2015, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The facts in brief are that a complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent no.2 against the accused/petitioner with the allegations that they were having family relations. The petitioner asked the respondent no.2 for a friendly loan of Rs.3,45,000/-. The respondent no.2 advanced the loan in two installments of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,45,000/- in the presence of witnesses Satender Kumar and Jitender Kumar on 21.12.2004 and 25.02.2005. The petitioner signed a promissory note for a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- and promised to return the loan amount till 21.05.2005. To repay the loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.739923 dated 01.02.2006 for a sum of Rs.3,45,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “funds insufficient”. The respondent no.2 sent a legal notice dated 19.06.2006 to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not make the payment. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3. The complainant/respondent no.2 examined herself to prove her case. The complainant was cross-examined by the petitioner. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.02.2015 convicted the petitioner and passed the order on sentence on 25.03.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Court below vide judgment dated 19.08.2015. Feeling aggrieved of the orders passed by the Courts below, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties were heard. I have gone through the arguments advanced and the material available on record.

5. Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent no.2 had not proved her case beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt. There were material discrepancies in the testimony of complainant witness. There was no proof that any liability accrued against the petitioner. The petitioner took the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the husband of the complainant and said loan was duly returned back in April, 2006 in the presence of DW1 Chhattarpal. At the time of advancing loan, Satender had taken 20 blank security cheques and out of those cheques, the cheque in question was misused by the complainant. It was further argued that the complainant in her cross-examination admitted that her husband had given Rs.1 lacs to her and the said amount was given by the complainant to the petitioner. The complainant did not remember the date of execution of pro note. It was further argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since 24.08.2015.

6. Per contra, it was argued that the complainant had duly established her case beyond reasonable doubt that loan of Rs.3,45,000/- was taken by the petitioner from the respondent no.2/complainant and to discharge his liability, he had issued the cheque in question. It was further argued that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the same was dishonoured when presented for encashment. It was further argued that the petitioner had failed to make the payment of cheque amount despite receipt of legal notice.

7. To prove her case, the respondent no.2/complainant had exami