This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) in Criminal Appeal No. 221/2013. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, whereby the petitioner was convicted u/s 138 NI Act and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 4,96,000/- to the complainant.

2. As per prosecution case, the complainant/respondent was the holder of a cheque issued by the appellant on 07.12.2010 for an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. The respondent deposited the cheque with the bank for encashment, which was initially dishonoured on 12.12.2010 with the endorsement “insufficient fund”. Therefore, the respondent again deposited the cheque with the bank for encashment, which was returned by the bank with the endorsement “payment has been stopped by the drawer”. The respondent issued statutory notice demanding the cheque amount and on failure of the petitioner to pay the amount, the respondent lodged a complainant before the Magistrate u/s 138 NI Act.

3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process.

4. In course of trial, complainant examined one witness being the complainant himself. The accused/respondent also examined two witnesses in support of his defence. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial court convicted the revision petitioner u/s 138 NI Act and awarded sentence as indicated above.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup. Learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant revision petition.

7. I have heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. P. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no legally enforceable debt, nor the cheque was issued for any consideration. The respondent/complainant procured the cheque forcibly, and he had himself written his name, amount etc in the cheque and lodged a false case claiming Rs. 4 lakhs. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the statutory presumptions u/s 139 and section 118 (a) of the PFA Act stood rebutted by the materials elicited in cross-examination of the respondent and the evidence of DWs and respondent failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the cheque was issued for consideration or in discharge of enforceable debt, but the learned trial court as well as the appellate court, without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, convicted the petitioner. It was further submitted by the learned counsel, that the statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant having stood rebutted, the petitioner could be convicted u/s 138 NI Act, in absence of evidence to prove that the cheque in question was issued for discharge of any enforceable debt or for consideration. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions :-

(ii) (2013) 1 SCC 327 (Reverend Mother Marykutty Vs. Reni C. Kottaram & Anr.).

(ii) (2014) 2 SCC 236 (John K. Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham & Anr.).

(iii) AIR 2009 (SC) 1518 (Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets)

9. Refuting the submission of the petitioner side, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the cheque was duly issued by the respondent in discharge of debt, and respondent having duly proved all the ingredients of offence u/s 138 NI Act by adducing evidence, and the petitioner having failed to adduce evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption u/s 139 and 118 (a), the impugned judgment warrants no interference by this Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Sudhir Sabharawal V