JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Present criminal revision is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Sirmour District at Nahan dated 22.2.2014 announced in Cr. Appeal No.32-N/10 of 2012 titled Balbir Singh Vs. Devinder Singh. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE : 2. Sh. Devinder Singh complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 pleaded therein that complainant is the proprietor of Gurunanak Service Station Badripur Paonta Sahib District Sirmour HP who deals in service of vehicle, repair and maintenance of trucks. It is further pleaded that accused was owner truck No HP-17-4105 used to come to service station of complainant for service, repair and maintenance of truck since 2004. It is further pleaded that complainant and accused had friendly relations. It is further pleaded that in the year 2005 accused borrowed a sum of Rs.116000/- (One lac sixteen thousand) from the complainant for the payment of loan against his truck which was refunded within normal period. It is further pleaded that again on dated 16.5.2009 accused had approached the complainant for borrowing a sum of Rs. 120000/- (One lac twenty thousand) for the purchase of new truck and promised to refund the amount within six months. It is further pleaded that complainant had given an amount of Rs. 120000/- (One lac twenty thousand) to accused. It is further pleaded that in lieu of payment of amount accused issued cheque No.220638 dated 30.1.2010. It is further pleaded that complainant presented aforesaid cheque before State Bank of Patiala for crediting the amount in saving bank account of complainant. It is further pleaded that cheque was sent to the bank of accused for collection but bank of the accused returned the cheque with the remarks insufficient funds. It is further pleaded that when accused had issued cheque in dispute at that time there were insufficient funds in the bank account of accused. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant issued legal notice through his Advocate to the accused demanding the amount due. It is further pleaded that despite demand notice accused did not pay the cheque amount. Prayer for punishment of accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act sought. 3. Learned trial Court issued notice of accusation to accused. Complainant examined following witnesses in support of his case. It is further pleaded that despite demand notice accused did not pay the cheque amount. Prayer for punishment of accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act sought. 3. Learned trial Court issued notice of accusation to accused. Complainant examined following witnesses in support of his case. Sr.No. Name of Witness CW1 N.S. Kandari CW2 Govind Singh CW3 Daya Ram CW4 Devinder Singh 4. Complainant produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of his case:- Sr.No. Description. Ext.CW1/B Statement of account & memo sent by Manager State Bank of Patiala. Ext.CW2/A Memorandum sent by PNB. Ext.CW2/B Statement of account Ext.CW3/A Copy of Slip No. 3484 dated 24.3.2010. Ext.CW4/A Cheque dated 30.1.2010 amounting to Rs.120000/- Ext.CW1/A Memo sent by Manager State Bank of Patiala CW2/A Memorandum of bank PNB. CW4/B Legal notice dated 19.3.2010. CW4/C Postal Receipt. 5. Learned trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to simple imprisonment for six months. Learned trial Court further directed the accused to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.120000/- (One lac twenty thousand) within 30 days. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 32-N/10 of 2012 titled Balbir Singh Vs. Devinder Singh and another before learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirmour District at Nahan. Learned appellant Court dismissed the appeal filed by accused and affirmed the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirmour District at Nahan Balbir Singh revisionist filed present revision petition. 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist No.1 and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-revisionist No.2 and also perused entire record carefully. 9. Following points arise for determination in the present criminal revision petition: 1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionist is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition. 2. Final order. 10. Testimony of oral witnesses examined by complainant________________________. 10.1 CW1 N.S.Kandari has stated that he has brought the summoned record. He has stated that complainant is account holder in the bank. He has stated that on dated 9th March 2010 complainant had deposited cheque for encashment. He has stated that cheque was sent for clearance. 2. Final order. 10. Testimony of oral witnesses examined by complainant________________________. 10.1 CW1 N.S.Kandari has stated that he has brought the summoned record. He has stated that complainant is account holder in the bank. He has stated that on dated 9th March 2010 complainant had deposited cheque for encashment. He has stated that cheque was sent for clearance. He has stated that cheque was returned back without any encashment with memo Ext. CW1/A. He has stated that statement of account is Ext CW1/B. He has stated that memo Ext CW1/A is not signed by him. He has stated that Ext CW1/B was not prepared by him. 10.2 CW2 Govind Singh has stated that he has brought the summoned record. He has stated that account of accused Balbir Sngh was available in Punjab National Bank Paonta Sahib. He has stated that cheque No. 220638 was received for clearance. He has stated that cheque could not be encashed due to insufficient funds in the account of accused. He has stated that memo Ext CW2/A was issued. 10.3 CW3 Daya Ram has stated that he has brought the summoned record. He has stated that registered letter No. 412 was issued in the name of Balbir Singh and same was received in the office on dated 25th March, 2010. He has stated that registered letter was delivered to Balbir Singh on the same day. He has stated that document Ext CW3/A is correct as per original record. 10.4 CW4 Devinder Singh has stated that he is running a service station at Badripur. He has stated that accused is known to him since 2004. He has stated that accused used to visit in the service station for the service of his vehicle. He has stated that accused took loan amount of Rs. 116000/- (One lac sixteen thousand) and the same was returned. He has stated that again on dated 16th May 2009 accused took loan to the tune of Rs.120000/-(One lac twenty thousand). He has stated that thereafter in lieu of loan accused issued cheque Ext CW4/A in consideration amount of Rs.120000/-(One lac twenty thousand). He has stated that on dated 9.3.2010 the cheque was presented for encashment but same was returned from the bank of loanee with the remarks insufficient funds. He has stated that thereafter he issued demand notice to accused. He has stated that thereafter in lieu of loan accused issued cheque Ext CW4/A in consideration amount of Rs.120000/-(One lac twenty thousand). He has stated that on dated 9.3.2010 the cheque was presented for encashment but same was returned from the bank of loanee with the remarks insufficient funds. He has stated that thereafter he issued demand notice to accused. He has stated that despite demand notice accused did not pay the loan amount to the complainant. He has denied suggestion that he did not issue any demand notice to accused. He has denied suggestion that cheque was issued by accused as a security. He has denied suggestion that no amount was paid to accused by complainant. He has denied suggestion that accused did not issue any cheque to the complainant. He has denied suggestion that false complaint filed against accused. He has denied suggestion that he has committed breach of trust with accused. 11. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused has stated that his signature is appearing in the cheque. Accused has stated that blank cheque was issued by him five years back. Accused has stated that he did not receive any demand notice. Accused has stated that cheque was filled by complainant himself. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Finding upon point No.1. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that cheque in question was filled by complainant which was issued as blank security cheque against non-existing liability and thereafter complainant misappropriated the aforesaid cheque and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused cheque Ext CW4/A dated 30.1.2010 placed on record. There is no recital in cheque Ext CW4/A placed on record that cheque was issued as security cheque. Cheque is signed by revisionist Balbir Singh and even revisionist Balbir Singh had admitted that his signature is appearing in the cheque Ext CW4/A placed on record. Court has carefully perused cheque Ext CW4/A dated 30.1.2010 placed on record. There is no recital in cheque Ext CW4/A placed on record that cheque was issued as security cheque. Cheque is signed by revisionist Balbir Singh and even revisionist Balbir Singh had admitted that his signature is appearing in the cheque Ext CW4/A placed on record. It is well settled law that Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is special act and there are presumptions as to negotiable instruments as per section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 relating to (a) Of consideration (b) As to date (c) As to time of acceptance (d) As to time of transfer (e) As to order of endorsements (f) As to stamps (g) That holder is a holder in due course. There is positive evidence on record that cheque was presented for encashment. There is positive evidence on record that cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of revisionist. There is positive, cogent and reliable evidence on record that thereafter demand notice was issued to revisionist but despite demand notice revisionist did not pay the amount due to complainant. 13. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate is based on surmises and conjectures and learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. The case of the complainant is duly corroborated by testimony of CW1 N.S.Kandari, CW2 Govind Singh, CW3 Daya Ram. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of CW1, CW2 and CW3. There is no positive, cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that CW1, CW2 and CW3 have hostile animus against revisionist at any point of time. Testimony of CW1, CW2 and CW3 are also corroborated with documentary evidence placed on record. Court has also carefully perused the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court. Learned trial Court has discussed oral as well as documentary evidence in a positive, cogent and reliable manner and has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record in the present case. Court has also carefully perused the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court. Learned trial Court has discussed oral as well as documentary evidence in a positive, cogent and reliable manner and has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record in the present case. There is no infirmity in appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence by learned trial Court. See 2015 Criminal Law Journal 2853 Apex Court titled T.Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijay Kumari. Also see 1999 (1) SCC 113 titled Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Narender and others. Also see 2002 (1) SCC 234 titled M.M.T. Vs. Medical Chemicals. It was held in case reported in AIR 2000 SC 145 titled Anil Hada Vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd. that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 there is legal presumption that cheque was issued for discharging an antecedent liability. It was held that presumption is in favour of holder of cheque. Revisionist did not adduce any positive rebuttable evidence in order to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. 14. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that no notice was served upon revisionist and on this ground revision petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that registered legal notice was given to revisionist on dated 19th March 2010 by complainant Ext CW4/B and postal receipt Ext CW4/C is also proved on record. CW3 Daya Ram delivery agent has specifically stated that registered letter No. 412 was issued in the name of revisionist Balbir Singh. CW3 Daya Ram has stated in positive manner that registered letter was received in the office on dated 25th March 2010. CW3 has specifically stated in positive manner that registered letter was delivered to revisionist on the same day. Testimony of CW3 Daya Ram to this effect is remained unrebutted on record. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of CW3. Testimony of CW3 Daya Ram is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. Even as per Section146 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881bank slips are prima facie evidence of facts. In the present case revisionist did not disprove the bank slips facts as required under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. 15. Testimony of CW3 Daya Ram is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. Even as per Section146 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881bank slips are prima facie evidence of facts. In the present case revisionist did not disprove the bank slips facts as required under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. 15. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that cheque is not filled by revisionist in his own hand writing and on this ground revision petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Revisionist has admitted his signature upon cheque Ext CW4/A dated 30.1.2010 which was issued in consideration amount of Rs.120000/- (One lac twenty thousand). It is well settled law that facts admitted need not to be proved as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. By way of signing the cheque Ext CW4/A it is held that revisionist has voluntarily acknowledged the liability of antecedent liability. Revisionist did not file any complaint before the police authority in order to prove that his signatures were obtained by complainant in a fraudulent manner. Even revisionist has not filed any application for sending the cheque for the opinion of hand writing expert. 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that complainant had committed breach of trust and on this ground revision petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The plea of revisionist that complainant had committed breach of trust is not proved on record by way of oral as well as documentary evidence. The plea of revisionist that complainant had committed breach of trust is failed on the concept of ipse dixit (Assertion made without proof). Hence point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order). 17. In view of above stated facts it is held that learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court have properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and it is also held that there is no illegality in the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court. It is held that no miscarriage of justice has been caused to revisionist in the present case. Revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any are also disposed of. It is held that no miscarriage of justice has been caused to revisionist in the present case. Revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any are also disposed of. File of learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with certify copy of judgment. File of criminal revision petition be consigned to record room after due completion. Revision petition is disposed of.