JUDGMENT

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

This order shall dispose of four revision petitions titled above, as issue involved in all these cases pertains to same transaction and as in all the cases, same facts and question of law are involved.

2. The facts are taken from CRR N: 1007-2010 (O&M). The revision is against the order dated 15.03.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala, upholding the judgment/order dated 09.06.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samana, convicting petitioner No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-.

3. Respondent No.2 Federation filed the complaint against petitioner No.2-M/s Sardar Exports Ltd., Samana, and its Director Sarabjit Singh (petitioner No.1) alleging that paddy was issued to the accused by the Markfed, Patiala for milling purposes for the year 1997- 98. Out of 197 wagons delivered to the accused, they failed to deliver 52 wagons of rice and as security, issued 8 cheques, including four cheques involved in these cases, drawn at Punjab National Bank, Samana. On presentation, the cheques were dishonoured on the ground that there were "no sufficient funds" in the account for encashment and further that accused No.2 (petitioner No.1) Sarabjit Singh did not have the authority to issue the cheques, as the same had already been drawn. Legal notice was sent to pay the amount, but in vain and hence the complaints were filed to prosecute the accused under section 138 of the N.I. Act. After holding the trial, accused were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samana and said conviction has been upheld by the Appellate Court.

4. It is contended by learned counsel that Courts below failed to appreciate that 8 separate cheques including 4 cheques in the aforesaid cases, all drawn at Punjab National Bank, Malkana, Patiala, were allegedly issued in favour of the complainant. On dishonour of all these cheques, 8 separate complaints were filed. 4 complaints landed in one Court for disposal, whereas four complaints were assigned to another Court. In 4 complaints, acquittal of the accused-petitioner has been recorded, which has been upheld till Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel contends further that the Courts below failed to take into account the factual aspect that petitioner No.1 did not have the authority to issue the cheques in question, as the same had already been drawn on 04.01.1999, regarding which intimation had been forwarded to the banker i.e., Punjab National Bank on 06.02.1999 and cheques were issued after this date. Apart from this, Courts below failed to take note of the fact that serving of the legal notice, which is pre-requisite for filing of complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act, was not proved on record as no postal receipt was produced to show the sending of the notice. Courts below failed to take into account the fact that cheques were not issued to discharge any debt or liability and rather, the same were issued as security, with an understanding that as and when the rice is delivered, the cheques shall be taken back. With these submissions, prayer is made for setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant opposed the revisions, though did not dispute the factual position that 8 different complaints were filed regarding dishonour of 8 cheques, which were issued in respect of the same transaction. He has also not disputed the fact that in 4 complaints, acquittal was recorded by the Court of Magistrate, which findings have been upheld till t