JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. V.K. Chopra, learned counsel, representing the respondent No.1.

2. The present revision has been preferred assailing the judgment and order passed by the two forums, whereby the present petitioner has been convicted u/s.138 of the N.I. Act, to simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay compensation of Rs.8 lacs to the complainant, u/s.357(3) of the CrPC and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost.

3. Briefly sated it can be stated that complainant Jitendra Singh filed a case u/s.138 of the N.I. Act alleging that the accused Binoy Bothra @ Binoy Kumar Bothra approached to him with a proposal that he would arrange for land for the complainant as he was a land broker and on his assurance, the complainant paid him Rs.5 lacs on 07.05.2009, to arrange for the land within 30 days. The accused also assured him to refund the amount in case of non-arrangement of the land. However as the accused failed to arrange the land as assured, so he issued a cheque of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant on 07.06.2009. On 14.09.2009, while the cheque was deposited to the concerned Bank, the same was returned unserved due to insufficient fund. Thereafter the complainant after serving legal notice to the accused demanding the cheque amount, filed a complaint u/s.138 of the N.I. Act, as the accused neglected to pay the amount within the stipulated period.

4. The accused/petitioner faced the trial and denied the charge u/s.138 of the N.I. Act.

5. During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself and two other witnesses (Bank officials) and the defence examined none. The learned trial Court formulated the following four points for consideration:

(1) Whether the accused issued the cheque for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability?

(2) Whether the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds in the account of the accused?

(3) Whether the accused received the demand notice issued by the complainant regarding the dishonour of the cheque?

(4) Whether the accused has committed the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

6. Having regard to the matters on record, the learned trial Court appreciated the evidence in detail and answered all the above four points in favour of the complainant and thereby come to a finding that the cheque in question was issued by the accused/petitioner in discharge of legally enforceable debt and there was no sufficient fund in the accounts of the accused to honour the cheque and the demand notice was duly served upon the accused/petitioner. Finally the learned trial Court found and hold that the accused person has committed the offence u/s.138 of the N.I. Act and by the order dated 28.02.2013, convicted the accused/petitioner to simple imprisonment for one year and further to pay compensation of Rs.8 lacs to the complainant (as against the cheque amount of Rs.5 lacs) and in default of compensation, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months.

7. While the aforesaid findings was assailed before the appellate Court, the learned appellate Court on appreciation of the matter on record and the evidence thereof, has affirmed the judgment of the trial Court, vide its order dated 26.05.2014, passed in Criminal Appeal No.63/2013.

8. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred on the ground that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective of law and has failed to look into the illegalities that have been cropped into wile upholding the judgment of the trial Court. It has been contended that the complainant has measurably failed to discharge his burden to prove that such loan has ever been given to the petitioner and without any supporting documents/ evidence and the Courts below have erred in deciding the facts that the complainant has proved his case.

9. I have considered the submission of learned cou