IMPORTANT POINT
Initially complainant has to prove existence of debt and other liabilities, thereafter burden shifts upon accused to prove that cheque not issued towards discharge of lawful debt, but issued by way of security or other reason on account of some business transaction or obtained unlawfully.

Paramjeet Singh, J.—The genesis of factual matrix lies over a dispute between a commission agent (respondent-complainant) and a farmer (petitioner-accused) which ended up in filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘N.I. Act’). Now-a-days, the people prefer to carry and execute a small piece of paper called cheque than the currency worth of cheque. The N.I. Act is a promptitude remedy to keep a close watch on the economic offence of cheating a person to whom a cheque is issued towards discharge of a debt.

2. Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 19.5.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.3.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar, vide which the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘N.I. Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

3. In nutshell, the case set up by the complainant as emanating from the record is to the effect that he was doing the business of commission agent at Abohar under the name and style of M/s Sidana Traders and he is the sole proprietor of his business. The complainant maintains true, proper and regular account books in the ordinary course of his business and strikes balance daily. The complainant advances loan to such agriculturalists, who sell or promise to sell their agricultural produce through him and interest is charged as per prevalent rate in the area of Mandi Abohar. The petitioner-accused used to sell the crop through the complainant and he has created a separate account in his name in the account books of complainant showing debit/credit entries as per dealings with the parties. Allegedly, on 26.5.2004, the petitioner visited the shop of complainant and after going through his account and understanding the entries and outstanding balance towards him, gave post-dated cheque bearing No.220614 dated 30.11.2004 for Rs.9,45,000 in discharge of recoverable debt out of his account No.4483 with Punjab National Bank in favour of the complainant and assured that the cheque amount will be paid by the bank on presentation of the same by the complainant. On 30.11.2004, when the complainant presented the said cheque, it was returned back by the petitioner’s banker on the ground of “Insufficiency of Funds” in the account of petitioner vide cheque return memo dated 3.12.2004, which was intimated to the complainant on 8.12.2004. The complainant approached the petitioner on 8.12.2004 and requested him to pay the cheque amount. The petitioner-accused was also served with legal notice dated 15.12.2004 vide which specific demand of Rs.9,45,000 was made. The accused received the legal notice but paid nothing to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

4. On the basis of preliminary evidence, notice of accusation for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the petitioner-accused to which he pleaded “not guilty” and claimed trial.

5. To prove his case, the complainant himself stepped into the witness-box as PW 3 besides examining Ved Parkash, Clerk, Punjab National Bank as PW1, Ashok Kumar, Clerk, Canara Bank as PW2.

6. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the complainants evidence and claimed to be innocent. In his defence, the accused examined Naveen Kumar, Clerk, Market Committee as DW1 and Nachattar Singh as DW2 and thereafter closed his defence evidence.

7. Vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.3.2012, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner accused