JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Under assailment is the judgment and order dated 29.9.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Crl. Appeal No. 20/2014 affirming the judgment and order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the learned Addl. CJM, Morigaon in CR Case No. 1973/2009 convicting the accused petitioner u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act) and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for 2 months 26 days and to pay the check amount of Rs. 15 lakhs along with fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 months. 2. Heard Mr. U. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent herein, namely, Monoj Kumar Jain filed a complaint before the court alleging therein that the accused petitioner who is the Managing Director of Baishnavi Infra Pvt. Ltd. Guwahati issued work order to the complainant/respondent no. 1 for installation of a tower at Thekeraguri. After completion of the works of construction when the complainant approached the accused petitioner for payment he was asked to approach the Wireless T.T. Infra Service Ltd. head office of the petitioners company and when approached by the complainant he was informed by the head office that already the amounts have been released in favour of the accused petitioner against the bills submitted by the complainant. When the complainant approached the accused petitioner for payment of the amounts, two cheques bearing No. 133311 for Rs. 10 lakhs and 133312 for Rs. 5 lakhs were issued in favour of the complainant respondent which were presented to the SBI, Jagiroad Branch for encashment by the complainant on 16.10.2009 but the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the accused petitioners. Thereafter statutory demand notice was issued on 03.12.2009 but having failed to get any response the complaint was filed. 4. The case came up for trial before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon during which four witnesses were examined by the complainant. Despite adequate opportunity provided to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses they were not cross-examined and no defence evidence has been adduced. There is concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts and Mr. 4. The case came up for trial before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon during which four witnesses were examined by the complainant. Despite adequate opportunity provided to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses they were not cross-examined and no defence evidence has been adduced. There is concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts and Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court, reported in Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 , contends that since there was concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below, revisional interference is uncalled for and unwarranted. 5. In controversion, Mr. U. Ahmed learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that even though the High Court cannot interfere when there is concurrent finding of facts in its revisional jurisdiction, but in rare and exceptional cases where there is manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice, it would be justified for the High Court to interfere with the judgment of the courts below. Mr. Ahmed further submits that the accused petitioner had no legally enforceable debt and liability and as such, he cannot be saddled with criminal liability and the Head Office of the Company, namely, Wireless T.T. Infra Service Ltd. is to be held liable. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions and on careful appraisal of the entire evidence on record, I have found that two cheques amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs were issued by the accused petitioner in favour of the complainant respondent for execution of the works of installation of the tower and those were dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the petitioner. Statutory demand notice was duly issued and having failed to get any response from the accused petitioner the complainant filed the complaint before the court. In support of his oral evidence the complainant produced the dishonoured cheques Ext 2 and Ext. 2 (1) from which it is found that those were issued on 12.10.2009 and those were returned by the Bank on presentation on the ground of insufficiency of fund. Exhibits 5 and 6 are the demand notices issued to the accused vide registered A/D post and despite service of notice no payment was made. 2 (1) from which it is found that those were issued on 12.10.2009 and those were returned by the Bank on presentation on the ground of insufficiency of fund. Exhibits 5 and 6 are the demand notices issued to the accused vide registered A/D post and despite service of notice no payment was made. The notices were sent within the statutory period as provided u/s 138 (b) and (c) of the NI Act and the complaint was filed within one month as provided u/s 142 (b) of the NI Act. The evidence of the complainant is also corroborated by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and they were familiar with the transaction between the accused petitioner and the complainant and they knew that contract was given to the complainant by the accused petitioner for installation of the tower and both of them deposed that the accused petitioner issued the cheques in favour of the complainant. Similarly P.W. 4 also was aware about the transaction and his positive evidence is that the cheques were issued by the accused petitioner to the complainant for execution of the works. None of the witnesses were cross-examined by defence and their unrebutted evidence established beyond doubt that the cheques were issued by the accused petitioner in favour of the complainant after completion of the works of installation of the tower. The cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the accused petitioner. 7. A feeble attempt was made by defence to prove that the accused petitioner was not responsible for conduct of business of Baishnavi Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. but that he was the Managing Director of the Company has not been disputed. It is also established that the accused petitioner issued work order in favour of the complainant vide Ext. 1 under his signature and he also issued the cheques. 8. Section 139 of the N.I. Act gives the presumption in favour of the holder of the cheques that the cheques have been issued by the accused towards a debt or liability and once the burden is discharged by the complainant the same can be rebutted. 1 under his signature and he also issued the cheques. 8. Section 139 of the N.I. Act gives the presumption in favour of the holder of the cheques that the cheques have been issued by the accused towards a debt or liability and once the burden is discharged by the complainant the same can be rebutted. Even though proof beyond doubt is not the criteria it is at least required to be proved by pre-pondered evidence that the cheques were not issued in the discharge of any debt or liability but the accused petitioner in the instant case has not adduced any evidence in support of the plea and consequently the said plea is not sustainable in law. 9. It clearly emerges from the evidence on record that the accused was the Managing Director of the Company and he issued the work order to the complainant for installation of the tower. It is also established that he issued cheques for Rs. 15 lakhs which was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. It has been concurrently held by both the courts below that all the legal requirements of Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been complied with and on scrutiny of the judgment I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned appellate court which calls for revisional interference. Consequently the revision filed by the petitioner is found to be devoid of merit and it is dismissed. 10. The accused petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within one month from today to serve out the sentence and to deposit the fine and compensation as ordered by the court. 11. Send down the LCR forthwith.