The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admission of signatures on a cheque establishes the drawer's liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the claim of misuse must be supported by evidence.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - The petitioner was tried for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). Vide judgment and order dated 07.10.2013, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala, held the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay the complainant compensation equivalent to the cheque amount.

2. Aggrieved there-against, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala. Vide judgment dated 12.02.2015, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

3. The complainant set into motion the criminal prosecution against the petitioner for having issued him cheque bearing No. 802785 dated 8.10.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of the discharge of his debt/enforceable liability against the loan of said amount taken by the petitioner from the complainant on 20.4.2010. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned back unencahsed vide memo dated 9.10.2010 with the remarks 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, the complainant served upon the petitioner legal notice dated 23.10.2010 calling upon him to make the payment within the stipulated period of 15 days, but the same not being done, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act.

4. The learned trial Court, after having recorded the preliminary evidence, summoned the petitioner to face the trial, vide order dated 7.12.2010. Thereafter, notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The complainant had examined himself as CW1 and produced documentary evidence in the form of Exhibits CW1/A and Exhibits C.1 to C.5.

6. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All the incriminating material was put to the accused, which he denied and pleaded innocence. It was further stated by the accused-petitioner that he did not borrow any amount from the complainant; that his father and brother were publishing two newspapers and the complainant was the legal adviser and they used to keep varius documents, affidavits and signed cheques in their office; that the complainant used to visit their office and he had misused the cheque in question by taking away the same from his office; that the cheque book relating to the cheque in question got lost and intimation regarding the loss of the cheque book was given to the bank on 20.11.2004 and that the cheque in question was forged and fabricated by the complainant, inasmuch as the wrong name of the father and that of the shop of the accused-petitioner had been given by the complainant in the legal notice.

7. In his defence, the complainant had examined Manish Kumar, Assistant Manager, Indian Overseas Bank as DW1, but the said witness did not appear for cross-examination. Babu Ram, Special Cadre Assistant, Indian Overseas Bank, Tripuri Branch, Patiala, had been examined as DW1, who brought the statement of account of the accused-petitioner (Ex.DW1/A) and letter written by Manmohan Singh Ex.DW1/B. Still further, accused-petitioner examined Shri R.V. Vashista, Handwring and Fingerprint Expert, Patiala as DW2, who had tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit (Ex.DW2/A), report Ex. DW2/B and three photocharts Ex. DW2/C to Ex.DW2/E containing 7 digital photographs. The said expert had, after thorough examination, in his report opined that the disputed writing marked as Q1 on the cheque dated 8.10.2010 had not been written by the person, who wrote the specimen writings and moreover, the writing instrument and ink used to fill in the body writing of the cheque was different from the one used by the signatory of the cheque.

8. The learned trial