The statutory presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises once the signatures on the cheque are admitted, and it is rebuttable. However, the burden to rebut the presumption lies on the accused, and in the absence of substantial evidence, the presumption may stand.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 13.08.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no.2 (hereinafter known as respondent no.2) and the accused/petitioner (hereinafter known as petitioner) had good relations and the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent no.2 in the month March 2010, for his personal necessities. The petitioner agreed to refund the amount to the Respondent no. 2 within five months. After the expiry of five months the respondent no. 2 asked the petitioner to repay the amount. For discharging his liability the petitioner issued a cheque bearing no. 045948 dated 01.10.2010 for Rs. 2,50,000/- payable at State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Jind to the Respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 presented the cheque in his account maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Jind which was dishonoured vide return memo dated 12.10.2010 with the remarks “Account Closed.” On receipt of information regarding dishonour of the cheque, the respondent no. 2 sent a legal demand notice dated 19.10.2010 to the petitioner through registered post, calling upon him to return the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- within 15 days from the receipt of the notice but the petitioner failed to make the payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent no. 2. Thereafter the present compliant came to be filed.

3. Based on the preliminary evidence lead, the accused/petitioner came to be summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. On reading the complaint and preliminary evidence a prima facie case under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was made out. Hence, notice of accusation under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.) was served upon the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter the matter was posted for complainant evidence.

5. The respondent no. 2, in order to bring home the guilt of the petitioner got examined himself as CW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex. CW-1/A. He proved Ex. C-1 cheque bearing No. 045948 dated 01.10.2010 of Rs. 2,50,000/-, Ex.C-2 cheque return memo dated 12.10.2010, Ex.C-3 postal receipt and Ex.C-4 legal notice dated 19.10.2010. After completion of the evidence of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied all the allegations leveled against him and stated that the case has been falsely set up against him.

6. In defence evidence, the petitioner got examined Gurmeet Singh as DW-1 and tendered affidavit Ex.DW-1/A and L.C. Suman as DW-2. He proved Ex.D-1 copy of application to S.P. Jind dated 12.08.2010, Ex.D-2 copy of statement of Jai Kumar, Ex.D-3 copy of compromise and Ex.D-4 attested copy of report of police and thereafter, the defence evidence was closed by the petitioner.

7. Based on the evidence lead the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 with fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

8. He preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind modified the sentence and reduced it to a period of one year. However, the amount of fine was enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.30,000/-

9. The present revision petition has been preferred against the aforementioned orders.

10. The counsel for the petitioner contends that notice was not served upon the petitioner. There was no evidence to suggest that the respondent no.2/complainant had the necessary financial capacity to advance the loan to the petitioner. In fact the co