Judgment

Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.02.2018, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner further seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 22.10.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby his appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed.

2. Mr. Naginder Singh Vashist, Advocate appears and files Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of the respondent in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Custody certificate dated 01.06.2023 of the petitioner has been filed by learned State counsel in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

4. Briefly stated, a complaint was filed by respondent-complainant, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner/convict had availed a RCC limit of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant-Bank vide loan account No.022315131000154. It was alleged that the petitioner had failed to repay the loan amount regularly and committed default therein due to which the account of the petitioner became irregular. Thereafter, it has been alleged that the petitioner in discharge of his partial liability towards the complainant, issued a cheque bearing No.279542 dated 30.12.2014 of Rs.2,38,000/- in the name of complainant-Bank, however, upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonored vide memo dated 30.12.2014 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, legal notice dated 14.01.2015 was sent through the registered post calling upon the petitioner to make the payment within the prescribed period of 15 days. Since, the payment was not made by the petitioner, accordingly, the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the respondent-complainant examined Harpreet Singh (power of attorney of the complainant-Bank) as CW-1 and tendered the following documents:

6. After closure of evidence of the complainant-Bank, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all the material incriminatory evidence/material was put to him, which he denied in toto and pleaded false implication. In defence, no evidence was produced.

7. After considering the material/evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and returned the following findings :-

“ - x - x -

14. I have scrutinized the testimony of CWI Harpreet Singh Manager who has stated in his cross-examination that the accused did not borrow the amount in his presence and no transaction took place in his presence but at the same time he has clarified that he was not posted in the complainant bank when the accused borrowed the loan amount. The said version of witness does not put any effect on the veracity of his evidence or the case of the complainant as undisputedly the present case is based on the documents which have been proved on record as per law. As such there