O R D E R

The present revision petition is maintained by the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

17.04.2018, passed by learned AdditionalSessions Judge (CBI), Shimla, Circuit Court at Theog, in Criminal Appeal No. 26-T/10 of 2017, whereby the judgment passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., dated 27.06.2017, and consequent order of sentence dated 01.07.2017, passed in case No. 388/3 of 2013, was upheld.

2. Tersely, the facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as under:

Shri Neeraj Chauhan, complainant/respondent

him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- (rupees one lac eighty thousand only) in favour of the complainant, through order dated 01.07.2017. The accused, being dissatisfied, preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 17.04.2018, dismissed the appeal and up-held the judgment of the learned Trial Court, hence the present revision petition.

3. It is averred in the petition that the learned Courts below have erred in considering the facts of the case and the accused has been wrongly convicted. It is further averred that the accused has been convicted on shabby and unreliable evidence, hence the judgments are not legally sustainable. The learned Courts below have not appreciated/re-appreciated the evidence correctly, so the judgments are liable to be quashed and set-aside. It is further contended that it is proved on record that the alleged issued cheque was blank cheque, given as a security. Lastly, it is prayed that the judgments of the learned Courts below be quashed and set-aside and the accused be acquitted.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused, learned Counsel for the respondent (complainant) and gone through the relevant records.

5. Learned Counsel for the accused has argued that the alleged cheque issued by the accused was a blank cheque, given in security. He has further argued that the learned Courts below have erred in evaluating the fact that the cheque in question was a blank cheque issued as a security. He has argued that there are variances and material contradictions in the statement of the complainant, so the learned Courts below have wrongly arrived at the conclusion of guilt of the accused. He has further argued that the accused has already made payment of the whole amount to the complainant, so the instant petition be allowed by quashing and setting-aside the judgments of the learned Courts below. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated/re-appreciated the material on record and it stands conclusively and irrefutably proved that the accused purchased apple boxes from the complainant qua which he issued a cheque, which was dishonoured. He has further argued that there is not even a speck of material, which can remotely, help the accused to wriggle out of financial liability towards the complainant, as it is convincingly proved on record that the accused has issued a cheque to the complainant in lieu of apple boxes, which he had purchased from the complainant. Lastly, he has argued that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below need no interference, thus the revision petition be dismissed.

6. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the accused reiterated his arguments. He has argued that as the accused has already made full payment to the complainant, so the instant revision petition is liable to be allowed by quashing and setting- aside the judgments of the learned Courts below and the accused be acquitted.

apt to examine the evidence.

8. It the very outset, it would be profitable to extract Section 139 of the NI Act, which is as under:

“[139. Presumption in favour of holder.-It shall be presumed, unless