The burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal case, the presumptions raised under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the need for the accused to rebut the presumptions in favor of the complainant.

JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge in the instant revision is made to the followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 30.09.2021, passed in Complaint Case No. 949 of 2019, Naseem Ahmad vs. Mohammad Rizwan @ Pappu and another (“the case”), by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First, Haridwar. By it, the revisionists have been sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”) and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.7,20,000/-. It has further been directed that out of the , Rs.7,10,000/- shall be paid to the private respondent and;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 25.02.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2019, Mohammad Rizwan @ Pappu and another vs. State, passed by the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar (“the Appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 30.09.2019, passed in the case has been confirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are in a very short span. They are as follows. The private respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the revisionists. According to it, the revisionist no. 1 is sole proprietor of the trading firm. Revisionist no. 1 purchased scrap from the private respondent on 25.04.2019. The total cost of the scrap was Rs.6,28,360/-. The revisionist no. 1 gave a cheque dated 25.04.2019 as consideration. But, when presented on 04.06.2019, it was dishonored. The information was given to the private respondent on 08.06.2019. Thereafter, a notice was given on 10.06.2019 to the revisionists, but they did not pay the money. Hence, the complaint was filed on 09.07.2019, cognizance taken. The revisionist no. 1 was read over the accusations on 08.09.2014. In order to prove its case, the private respondent appeared himself as PW1. He reiterated the version of the complaint and produced various documents, including the cheque Ex. A-1, Bank memo Ex. A-2, deposition of cheque in the bank receipt Ex. A-3, a copy of the notice Ex. A-4, and various documents pertaining to the transactions. He also submitted that the original Bill Book Ex. A-10, certain photographs, the documents regarding the income tax department Ex. A-13, and records of commercial tax Ex. A-16.

4. The revisionist no. 1 appeared as DW1. According to him, though he had purchased the articles from the private respondent, but the cheque was given as a security for its payment. According to DW1, who is revisionist no. 1, he had returned all the money due to the private respondent. He also filed some documents, but they have not been exhibited.

5. After examining, the revisionist no. 1, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2019 passed in the case, the revisionist no 1 has been convicted and sentenced. It has been unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists has raised two issues, which is as hereunder:-

(i) It has not been even shown by the private respondent as to how did he get that much scrap on 25.04.2019 in a single day and how did he transfer it to the revisionist no. 1 and;

(ii) A ledger book was filed by the revisionists in the case, but it has not been considered.

7. It is a revision. This Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal in this revision. Appreciation of evidence is not generally done in such proceedings. The scope is to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of an impugned judgment. Of course, evidence may be appreciated, if the findings recorded is perverse, i.e. against the weight of evidence or if the material evidence is ignored or irrelevant material is considered by the Court while passing the impugned judgment.

8. In any criminal case, the prosecution has undoubtedly has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are various presumptions which can be raised under the provisions of the Act. For example, under Section 118 o