The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 138 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which govern the liability of the drawer of a dishonored cheque and the presumption of consideration for the cheque.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. :

This Revision Petition has been filed against judgment dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 1-S/10 of 2015 vide which, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 13.05.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jubbal, District Shimla in Case No. 1/3 of 2012, whereby the present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The case of the complainant was that he and accused were good friends and had good relations with each other. Accused approached the complainant in January, 2011 and hired a Tipper from him on monthly rental charges of Rs.65,000/- per month. The truck was accordingly handed over by the complainant to accused on rent so agreed between him and the accused. In order to discharge his liability as was due towards the complainant, the accused issued advance post dated chaques, i.e., cheque Nos. 848691 dated 18.06.2011, 848690 dated 18.07.2011, 848692 dated 18.08.2011 and 848693 dated 18.09.2011, each amounting Rs.65,000/-, which were drawn upon the Punjab National Bank, Nahan Branch, District Sirmaur. When the said amount became due from the accused to the complainant as a result of the accused plying the Tipper which was hired by him, he presented the said cheques in his Bank, i.e. H.P. State Co-operative Bank, Jubbal Branch for the collection of the same. However, these cheques of the complainant were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused dated 24.11.2011 on his last known address. Despite issuance of the said legal notice, the accused failed to make the payment of the dishonoured cheques.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and notices were issued to the accused. After procuring his attendance, notice of accusation was put to the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined three witnesses and the accused did not examine any witness.

5. CW-1 Rishi Sharma, Clerk, Punjab National Bank, Nahan Branch deposed that the cheques in issue were presented for honouring in Punjab National Bank, Nahan Branch, which were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Similarly, CW-2 Inder Singh Mokta, Assistant of H.P. Co-operative Bank, Jubbbal Branch has deposed that after dishonour of the cheques, subject matter of the present case, the said information was supplied to the complainant. Complainant entered the witness box as CW-3 and he reiterated his complaint. In his crossexamination, he stated that no payments were made to him by the accused in cash. He further stated that the accused had made three payments to him, i.e. an amount of Rs.65,000/-, Rs.58,000/- and Rs.65,000/- and all these three payments were made by way of cheques. He further stated in his cross-examination that his Tipper remained with the accused on rent for a period of eight months. He has also stated that an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was due towards him from the accused and he had presented all the cheques on the asking of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had misused the cheques or that he had received the payments.

6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to the statement of accused made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A specific question was put to the accused that it has come in the evidence of the complainant that the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 24.11.2011 Ex. CW1/H upon the accused asking him to make the payments of the cheques amount and despite this, the payments were not made. His answer was “Yes, but total amount which was due was about Rs.90-95,000/-, which he was willing to pay at that time also”. In other w