The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the signatures on the cheque are admitted by the accused, it matters little if the name of the payee, date, and amount are filled up at a subsequent point in time.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Cri.Rev.P.160/2016 and Crl.Rev.P.162/2016 have been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of judgments dated 22.08.2015 of learned District and Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.58/2015 and Crl.A.No.57/2015 by which the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the judgments dated 07.07.2015 and the order on sentence dated 13.07.2015 were endorsed.

2. The petitions are contested by the complainant. It is relevant to note that in Crl.Rev.P.No.160/2016, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eighteen months with compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/-; the default sentence for non-payment of compensation being simple imprisonment for six months. Similar sentence was awarded to the appellant in Crl.Rev.P.No.162/2016 with compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. In Crl.Rev.P.No.160/2016, in the complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act it was averred by the complainant that in the second week of May, 2007, he had advanced a loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the petitioner on his assurance to discharge it within a year. In discharge of liability, the petitioner issued three cheques (Ex.CW-1/1 to CW-1/3) detailed therein for a total sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. On presentation, these cheques were dishonored with the remarks “insufficient funds” vide returns memo (Ex.CW1/7 to Ex.CW1/9). Legal notice (Ex.CW-1/13) was served upon the petitioner which remained uncomplied. Affidavit (Ex.CW-1/A) in post-notice evidence was filed and proved. In the statement under Section 281 read with Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 7.12.2012, the petitioner claimed that the cheques in question were issued in blank towards security of loan of Rs. 40,000/- taken by Ms. Ravinder Kaur Sodhi from the complainant. The petitioner examined himself in defence. Upon hearing the arguments, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The findings were endorsed by the appellate court.

4. Similarly, in Crl.Rev.P.No.162/2016, the complainant Chander Prakash in complaint case No.130/01/08 averred that he had advanced funding of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner in the third week of June, 2007 with the assurance to return it by 30.06.2008. The petitioner had issued three cheques for the total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as detailed in the complaint. These cheques were dishonored on presentation. Legal demand notice was served on 26.07.2008 but it had no impact. The petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence and it was closed on 16.02.2015. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal against the findings resulted in its dismissal.

5. Issuance of cheques in both the petitions is not in controversy. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have clearly noted that defence taken by the petitioner for issuance of cheques in question was conflicting. At one stage, he had claimed that these cheques were issued as a security for different loans taken by Ravinder Kaur Sodhi from the complainant. However, in applications under Section 145(2) Negotiable Instruments Act filed by him in both the petitions, he took an inconsistent defence stating that he had lost these cheques and had lodged a complaint in that regard. It was noted by the Trial Court that the petitioner was unable to substantiate the defence in either way. He was unable to prove if any loan was ever taken by Ms. Ravinder Kaur Sodhi from the complainant or he had stood surety and had issued the cheques in question as a ‘security’. Ms. Ravinder Kaur Sodhi was not even examined by the petitioner. No documents, whatsoever, have been placed on record to show if any loan was taken from the complainant or any proceedings were initiated by him against her. It w