IMPORTANT POINTS
Proceedings after successive default are not impermissible.
Concurrent findings of fact by courts below cannot be upset under revisional jurisdiction unless perverse.
Revisional Court cannot re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.
Presumption u/s 139 is a presumption of law, as distinguished from presumption of facts and is rebuttable.
Guilt may be established by recourse to presumptions in law and presumptions in facts.
In all cases of conviction u/s 138 fine should uniformly levied up to twice the cheque amount. Further, keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss, payment of such amount as compensation should be directed.
Decision under Article 142 to do complete justice is not a law declared under Article 141.
A person signing a cheque and making it over to payee remains liable unless the presumption u/s 139 is rebutted by adducing evidence. The cheque having been filled by anybody else than the drawer is immaterial if duly signed by the drawer.

JUDGMENT :

INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are against a Judgment and order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowing the Criminal Revisional Application being Criminal Revision Petition No. 849 of 2016 filed by the respondent-accused, challenging a judgment and order dated 20.2.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2015 filed by the respondent-accused, inter-alia, affirming a judgment and order of conviction of the respondent-accused, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palwal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. It is the case of the appellant-complainant, that the respondent-accused issued a cheque being Cheque No. 034212 dated 4.3.2012 drawn on Axis Bank, Branch, Palwal in the name of the appellant towards repayment of a “friendly loan” of Rs. 15 lakhs advanced by the appellant-complainant to the respondent-accused.

4. On 11.4.2012, the appellant-complainant deposited the said cheque in his bank, but the cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement “Insufficient Fund.”

5. The appellant-complainant has alleged that, on the assurance of the respondent-accused, that there would be sufficient funds in his bank account to cover the amount of the cheque, the appellant-complainant again presented the cheque to his bank on 23.5.2012, but it was again returned unpaid with the remark “Insufficient Fund.”

6. On 15.6.2012, the appellant-complainant issued a legal notice to the respondent-accused through his lawyer, calling upon the respondent-accused to pay the cheque amount. The said notice, sent by registered post, was according to the appellant-complainant, duly served on the respondent-accused. The respondent-accused, however, did not reply to the notice. Nor did he pay the cheque amount to the appellant-complainant.

7. The appellant-complainant filed a Criminal Complaint against the respondent-accused, being Case No. 106 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

8. Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are set out herein below for convenience:-

“138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account – Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:-

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation – For the purposes of this section “debt or other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

139. Presumption in favour of holder – It shall be presumed, unless the co