The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the dishonor of a cheque due to insufficient funds, the presumption of the cheque being issued against a debt, and the adherence to timelines for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. S. K. Laik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

3. Heard Ms. Niki Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party –State.

4. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge- V, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2011 whereby the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-V has dismissed the criminal appeal which was filed against the judgment dated 09.02.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with C-2287 of 2009/ T.R. No. 1102 of 2011. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and has directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing her argument, has submitted that the learned courts below have not properly considered the defence evidence that the accused had left his cheque at the house of Mr. Jain Saheb and in spite of request made by the accused, the cheque was not returned and, in fact, said Mr. Jain Saheb had refused to return the cheque. She submits that in view of the evidence of D.W. 1, the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.

6. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various dates and has submitted that the cheque involved in this case was dated 18.07.2009 for an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, which was deposited in the account of the accused on 20.07.2009 and the same had bounced. The complainant had received the information regarding bouncing of cheque on 31.07.2009. The required legal notice was sent on 26.08.2009 which was served upon the accused on 31.08.2009 and in spite of that, the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Thereafter, the complaint case was filed on 24.09.2009. The learned counsel submits that the main point for argument of the petitioner is that there was no debt payable to the complainant and in fact, the complainant had misused the cheque.

7. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, considering the facts and circumstances of this case the sentence of the petitioner be modified. She submits that the petitioner may be directed to pay some more amount as fine over and above the compensation amount within a stipulated time and the sentence be limited to the period already undergone. She submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for some time. She submits that at the stage of revision the petitioner had surrendered on 27.07.2012 and was directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2012.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that there is presumption in law that the cheque has been issued against a debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and over and above the presumption in law, the complainant had explained as to how the amount was payable to the complainant. It has come in evidence that the complainant had talked with the accused regarding purchase of land and the accused had shown photocopies of the documents regarding the land. The complainant agreed to purchase the land and the value of the land was fixed at Rs. 11,50,000/-. The complainant made a payment of Rs. 3 lakhs in advance to the accused and on different dates a total amount of Rs. 8.50 lakhs was paid. Thus, she paid an amount of Rs. 11.5 lakhs and subsequently, when she learnt that the document relating to the land was forged, the accused had issued a cheque of