A presumption exists that a cheque is issued for consideration; the burden is on the accused to rebut this presumption, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT:

R.K.PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision is filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner assailing the impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 30^th May, 2022 passed in connection with 1CC No.16 of 2019 by learned JMFC, Champua as at Annexure-2 and the judgment dated 29^th January, 2024 confirming the same by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2022 under Annexure-3 on the grounds inter alia that such decision is unjust, illegal and perverse and hence, liable to be set aside for the ends of justice.

2. A complaint was filed by the opposite party in 1CC No.16 of 2019 before the Court of learned JMFC, Champua stating therein that he and one Antaryami Mishra were dealing with wholesale business of Parle-G, Britannia, Diary Milk and other products and in the year, 2015 and 2016 and had opened a canteen-cum-coffee stall and at that time, the petitioner, a permanent resident of Champua and Dentist by profession asked for financial help on different occasions. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner used to pay back the money in 6 to 8 months’ time and in the year, 2016, when he was facing financial difficulties sought help and in return, the opposite party arranged and helped him for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with an assurance of repayment and at the same time, issued two cheques and when demanded for refund in the year, 2018, it was evaded by him citing family problems and at last, when he failed to receive back the money, finding no other alternative, reported the same to the local police and in the meantime, the alleged cheque was presented in the Bank but it could not be honoured due to insufficiency of funds duly intimated and upon such intimation received and after notice dated 22^nd April, 2019, the petitioner did not take any step for repayment and maintained silence and thereafter, the complaint was filed with delay but it was condoned by order dated 11^th September, 2019.

2.1. In support of issuance of cheque and the liability against the petitioner, the opposite party examined himself as C.W.1 and another witness, namely, C.W.2, whereas, the petitioner examined him as D.W.1. In support of the case, the opposite party proved nine exhibits but in the defence, no documentary evidence was adduced by the petitioner. The petitioner denied any such friendly loan received from the opposite party. Rather, while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner claimed that that he had given cheque to the opposite party but never received Rs.10,00,000/- from him as loan. Considering the evidence received on record, learned JMFC, Champua found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and convicted him thereunder and directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,62,500/- to the opposite party as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to be realised as a fine with a default sentence of SI for six months besides a sentence of S.I. of eighteen months with a conclusion that the plea advanced by him is unworthy of acceptance. It has been concluded further that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption vis-à-vis liability. Being unsuccessful, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2022 but it was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua. Against the order of confirmation in the appeal dated 29^th January, 2024, the petitioner filed the revision.

3. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the opposite party.

4. The impugned judgments in 1CC No.16 of 2019 and Cri