The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of rebutting statutory presumptions and providing sufficient evidence to support a defense under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

Crl.M.A.9198/2017 (for condonation of delay in re-filing)

1. Petitioner seeks condonation of delay in re-filing the Revision Petition. It is contended that initially the petitioner had filed an application seeking leave to lead additional evidence, however, the same was rejected. The Revision Petition was filed within time, however, certain objections were raised by the registry. The application was taken back for re-filing and got misplaced and subsequently, when the file was traced out, the same was re-filed with delay.

2. Reply to the application has been filed. However, during submission there was no serious opposition to the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in refiling is condoned. CRL.REV.P. 811/2015 & Crl.M.(Bail) 8349/2015 (for grant of bail during pendency of the petition)

1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 09.12.2015, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner, impugning order on conviction dated 06.06.2013 and order on sentence dated 25.06.2013, has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant.

3. Subject complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 contending that he was a dealer in general items inter alia computers, spare parts, mechanical spare parts, handicrafts, home furnishing, etc. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 had been purchasing goods from the complainant on credit basis and a current account was being maintained in the regular course of business. It is alleged that the complainant supplied good to the respondent No.2 against two bills totalling to Rs.8,80,500/-. Petitioner is the son of the respondent No.2.

It is alleged that in discharge of liability of respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1, petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.084680 dated 22.10.2004 in the sum of Rs.8,80,500/-. Subject cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. On assurance of the petitioner, the cheque was represented and again dishonoured. Thereafter a legal notice was given to the petitioner which was not complied with. Accordingly, subject complaint was filed.

4. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 06.06.2013, held that the petitioner had given the cheque in discharge of liability of the respondent No.2 and had not disputed his signatures on the cheque and, accordingly, presumption under Section 118(a) and Section 139 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 was fulfilled.

5. The Trial Court, accordingly, held that respondent No.1 had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and petitioner was convicted of the subject offence. Respondent No.2, who was also arrayed as an accused, was acquitted as the cheque had not been issued by him.

6. The Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2015, negated the contention of the petitioner that the transaction between the respondent No.1 and petitioner/respondent No.2 was a sham transaction or that nothing had been supplied. The Trial Court further negated the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had actually set up two companies one in the name of the petitioner and another in the name of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner was only an employee of respondent No.1 and the transactions were done by the respondent No.1 in the names of the petitioner and the respondent No.2.

7. The Appellate Court further rejected the contentions of the petitioner that the cheque has not been issued against any legal liability.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 had filed two complaints, one only against the petitioner and the other (subject complaint) jointly against the respondent No.2 and the petitioner with regard to two separate cheques. It is contended that the allegations in the two complaints were identical and in both the cases, the two cheques were alleged to have been issued by