The issuance of a cheque creates a presumption of a legally enforceable debt, which the accused must rebut, failing which conviction under Section 138 NI Act is upheld.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with the following prayers:

"a) Call for the record of the Ld. Courts below and set aside/quash/annul the judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Ld. ASJ-02, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Crl. Appeal bearing Cr. No. 525/2019 which was filed against impugned judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed by Sh. Anubhav Jain, Ld. MM, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in C.C. No. 2618/2017 U/s 138 NI Act whereby the Ld. MM was pleased to hold the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.7,00,000/- which completely shall be paid as compensation to the complainant, by which the Ld. ASJ-02, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and modified the sentence and directed to pay fine of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent No. 2 and in default of payment of fine within 4 weeks, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

b) Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the revisionist/petitioner, in the interest of justice."

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the revisionist stating that on 15.12.2016, the revisionist had taken a friendly loan of Rs.4,80,000/- from the respondent for a period of one month. The revisionist issued the cheque bearing No. 000176 dated 13.02.2017 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- in favour of the respondent. The said cheque was presented for encashment by the respondent which was returned by the banker with remark "fund insufficient." Thereafter, the respondent issued legal notice dated 20.02.2017 calling upon the revisionist to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice. However, the payment of the cheque in question was not made by the revisionist within the stipulated period which resulted in the filing of the complaint case No. 2618/2017 under Section 138 of NI Act.

3. Vide judgment dated 29.07.2019, the Ld. MM convicted the revisionist under Section 138 NI Act and vide order on sentence dated 09.09.2019, the revisionist was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.7 Lakh to be paid completely as compensation to the respondent. The revisionist challenged this judgment and order on sentence, by filing criminal appeal No. 525/2019 before the Ld. ASJ and the Ld. ASJ vide impugned judgment dated 26.03.2021 disposed of the appeal filed by the revisionist and modified the sentence to the extent that a fine of Rs.7,00,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the respondent No. 2 and if the fine of Rs.7,00,000/- is not paid within 4 weeks, the revisionist shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Ld. ASJ is under challenge in the present revision petition.

4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, State is the proforma party so arguments were advanced by the Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 2. I have also perused the records of this case.

5. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is a stranger to the respondent No. 2 and that he has no legal liability towards him. It is further submitted that he had lost his signed blank cheques and a complaint in this regard was also filed in the year 2014. It is fur