The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and the provision for condoning the delay in filing the complaint under Section 142.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction recorded by the trial Court in a cheque bounce case, which has been affirmed by the appellate Court.

2. Criminal Complaint No.256 of 2014 was filed by complainant-Jit Singh (respondent herein) with the allegation that an amount of Rs. 4 lakh was borrowed by the accused-Sukhpal Singh (petitioner herein) from him in November 2013 for a period of four months. For discharging his liability, accused issued a cheque No.032506 dated 20.02.2014 for an amount of Rs. 4 lakh drawn on Union Bank of India, Branch Dhuri favouring the complainant. On presentation of the cheque by the complainant to his banker i.e., Punjab National Bank, the cheque was returned unpaid with the remarks "not arranged for and refer to drawer' vide memo dated 05.03.2014. Demand notice dated 19.03.2014 was issued by the complainant asking the accused to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days. Despite receipt of the notice, accused failed to make the payment and hence the complaint was filed on 28.04.2014 before Id. JMIC, Patiala. However, in view of the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 SCC 129, the Court found that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, complaint was returned vide order dated 14.10.2014 to be filed before the competent Court having jurisdiction, within a period of 30 days.

3. Complaint was then filed on 22.12.2014 before the Id. JMIC, Sangrur, who after recording preliminary evidence issued the process. On appearance, notice of accusation was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After taking evidence produced by the complainant, statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which he pleaded no acquaintance with the complainant; that in fact he used to have money transactions with one Shinderpal Singh, to whom he had given blank cheques and pronote as security and that complainant had misused the cheque by taking it from Shinderpal Singh. Accused also produced defence evidence to support his stand.

4. After hearing both the sides, Id. JMIC, Sangrur held the accused to be guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short 'the NI Act'] and convicted him accordingly vide judgment dated 01.03.2017. Vide separate order of even date, the accused-petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and held also to pay find of Rs. 500 with default sentence of one month.

5. In appeal filed before the Court of Sessions, contention was raised that the complaint was barred by limitation, inasmuch as after return of the complaint vide order dated 14.10.2014 by the Court of Id. JMIC, Patiala, the same was required to be filed within a period of 30 days, but the same had been filed beyond 30 days. Ld. appellate Court observed that the said plea was never raised before the trial Court. Besides, the initial complaint was filed before the Patiala Sessions Division well within limitation. Trial Court had not given any specific finding and so, delay in filing the complaint was deemed to have been waived off/condoned by the trial Court. Some other contentions were also raised by the appellant-accused, but the same were rejected. Vide judgment dated 10.02.2020, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction as well as sentence.

6. It is contended by Id. Counsel before this Court that both the Courts below did not consider the fact that petitioner had not borrowed any money from the respondent-complainant; that in fact he used to give and take the money from Shinderpal Singh, known to him, and to whom he (petitioner) had given blank cheque and pronote as security and that said cheque has been misused by the complainant by taking it from Shinderpal Singh. It is further contended that no document or receipt of the loan alleged to have been taken by the petitioner