The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of authentic evidence to prove the issuance of cheques and discharge of legally enforceable liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

SUDHIR MITTAL, J.

1. This judgment shall decide CRR Nos.173, 174, 175 and 177 of 2023. Two of these revisions arise out of orders of the appellate Court dismissing the appeals filed against judgments of conviction. The other two revisions arise out of orders of the appellate Court enhancing the amount of compensation to be paid to the complainant.

2. The trial Court had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which to further undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month. In appeals filed by the complainant, sentence of imprisonment was maintained, but instead of costs, the petitioner was directed to pay compensation equivalent to the cheque amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of conviction till the date of realization.

3. As per the complaint filed under the Act, Bahadur Singh father of the accused had relations with the Proprietor of the Firm, namely, M/s Barinder Kumar & Raj Kumar as he used to sell his crop at its shop. On account of this relationship, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- on 01.02.2016. This money was required for making payment to Indian Overseas Bank, Rajpura as well as for treatment of his father. The said amount was advanced vide cheque dated 01.02.2016 which was a bearer cheque. In discharge of the liability, two cheques were issued by the accused, each of Rs.10,00,000/-. The first one was dated 30.04.2016 and the second one was dated 06.05.2016. Upon presentation, both the cheques were dis-honoured with the remark ‘insufficient funds’. Thus, legal notice dated 13.05.2016 was issued, but the same was ignored leading to filing of two separate complaints. Thus, two separate orders of conviction and sentence were passed. The evidence being the same, both complaints were decided together.

4. The defence set up by the petitioner was of false implication. According to the petitioner, the money allegedly advanced was never borrowed. The cheques of the petitioner were mis-used. Two leaves were stolen from his cheque book and the signature was forged. This was done in connivance with the bank officials.

5. Needless to say, the defence has been discarded by both the Courts below.

6. The first and foremost argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that advance of sum of Rs.19,00.000/- is not proved as the cheque dated 01.02.2016 was a bearer cheque and no identity proof was provided at the time of its encashment. Although, the cheque has allegedly been signed by the petitioner, a perusal of the signature thereon by the petitioner would show that his signature was forged. Thus, the Courts below were in error in returning a finding that cheques in dispute had been issued in discharge of legally enforceable liability.

7. On the face of it, the argument appears attractive. The submission is also supported by a perusal of the signature of the petitioner which is on record as Ex.C-2/E. The said signature does not match with the admitted signature. However, other evidence also has to be read in conjunction with the same to reach a proper conclusion. The Bank Manager, namely, Suresh Kumar (DW-1) has stated in his cross-examination that before a bearer cheque is honoured, the Branch Manager verifies the identity of the person from document such as Aadhar Card, Driving Licence or any other authentic document disclosing his identity. Only after due verification, the cheque was encashed and this is evident from endorsement of the then Branch Manager whose signature and seal exists on the reverse of the original cheque. The account statement of the complainant is on record as Ex.C-6 and the same clearly records debit of Rs.19,00,000/- on 01.02.2016 from his account. Voucher dated 01.02.2016 of the Firm-M/s Barinder Kumar & Raj Kumar is Ex.C-7 on the record. The same records advancement of Rs.19,00,