Presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act imply that once cheque issuance is admitted, it is presumed to discharge a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to provide evidence to rebut this presumption.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence both dated 16.02.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot in Criminal Complaint bearing No. RT 717 of 2014 titled as Satwant Singh v. Sunder Lal and another whereby the petitioners had been held guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short “Act”) and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days more and the judgment dated 04.02.2016 as passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot in Criminal Appeal bearing CIS No.CRA/45 of 2015 titled as Sunder Lal and another v. Satwant Singh thereby affirming the judgment/order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Magistrate.

2. For the sake of continuity and coherence, parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per the same nomenclature as given before the trial Magistrate.

3. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned complaint had been filed by the complainant Satwant Singh against the accused on the allegations that they had jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him on 01.12.2012. To discharge their legal obligation, to repay the borrowed amount, they had issued a joint post dated cheque bearing No.0456031 dated 12.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- out of their joint account in favour of the complainant. The said cheque when presented before the banker of the complainant was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. The complainant orally asked the accused to repay the amount of cheque but in vain. He was constrained to send legal notices to both the accused on 15.12.2012. The accused refused to receive notices and to make payment of the amount in question even after expiry of statutory period, thereby compelling the complainant to file the aforementioned complaint.

4. After considering the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the learned Magistrate passed order dated 09.01.2013 thereby issuing process against the accused. On their appearance, they were admitted to bail and on finding a prima facie case, notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act was served upon them. They pleaded not guilty to the notice and claimed trial.

5. The complainant produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the allegations as levelled in the complaint.

6. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. It was pleaded by them that no amount of money had been borrowed by them from the complainant nor he was in a position to give the same and further that he had been playing fraud upon innocent persons and an FIR for commission of offence of cheating had been lodged against himself.

7. In defence evidence, the accused examined three witnesses. Several documents had also been adduced. After considering the evidence produced on record by both the parties and giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by their respective counsel, the learned trial Magistrate held the accused guilty and convicted them in the manner as already indicated.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which had been dismissed as mentioned above.

9. The present petition has been filed on the grounds and it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence as passed by learned trial