JUDGMENT :

The learned trial Court, upon, Criminal Case No. 47-1/2014/137-III/2014, decided on 15.11.2016, made a verdict of conviction, upon the accused, for his committing an offence punishable, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though a separate order drawn on 16.11.2016, the learned trial Court imposed, upon the accused, a sentence of imprisonment extending upto a period of 9 months, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.s Act. Moreover, the learned trial Court, through the afore drawn order, awarded a lump sum compensation carried in a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to the complainant, and, ordered its being recovered from the accused one Tara Chand.

2. The accused convict becoming aggrieved from the afore drawn verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence becoming imposed, upon him, by the learned trial Court, proceeded to institute an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 49 of 2016, before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court through its verdict made thereon, on 1.8.2017, declined to interfere with the verdict supra recorded by the learned trial Court.

3. Therefore, the accused/convict is led to institute thereagainst the extant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court.

4. Cheque Ex.CW1/B carrying therein a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, on its presentation before the bank concerned, became dishonoured. Ex.CW1/C, is the memorandum issued by the bank concerned, and, makes a disclosure therein, that for want of sufficient funds existing in the account of the petitioner/accused, the bank concerned not becoming facilitated to honour, the cheque supra, as, become presented before it, by the complainant.

5. Thereafter, since subsequent to the issuance of statutory notice, by the complainant to the accused, and, as becomes borne in Ex.CW1/D, notice whereof became sent through registered post, to the respondent/accused, and, became accompanied by an acknowledgement borne in Ex.CW1/F, yet the notice (supra), not begetting the requisite compliance from the accused/petitioner. Consequently, the complainant was led to institute the complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. The complainant, during the course of his examination-in-chief tendered his affidavit comprised, in Ex.CW1/A, and, therein he maintained that various amounts either through cheque or through cash, all totalling a sum of Rs. 15 lacs became disbursed to the respondent/accused. He avers therein, that the afore sums were disbursed as loan, to the accused/petitioner, as, he was in dire need of money, owing to family problems, and, for his meteing the expenses towards his medical treatment. He has also echoed therein, that some of the amounts became received by the accused through his wife one Smt. Khema Devi. Moreover, he has also averred therein that the accused had orally offered to sell his land to him, and, in lieu of the afore orally agreed transfer of land to him by the accused, the latter made borrowings of a sum of Rs.15 lacs from him. He contends that since the oral promise became reneged by the accuse,d thereupon, the latter issued cheque bearing an amount of Rs.15 lacs. Obviously he maintained, that the dishonour of the cheque amount by the bank concerned, did hence constitute a validly recoverable amount by him from the accused. In other words, he maintained that the cheque amount be construable to be in discharge of contractual liability supra, or/and, towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt supra.

7. The accused has not denied the existence of his valid signatures, upon the cheque comprised in Ex.CW1/B. He though, during the course of cross-examination of the complainant, did not make suggestion to him, appertaining to the particulars carried therein being not scribed in his hands, nor obviously any elicitations surged forth, from the complainant manifestative of the particulars occurring therein being in the hands of the accused. However, during the