ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present criminal revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned trial Court in RBT No. 39/3 of 2011/10 title Ram Chand vs. Banshi Ram and affirmed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.2.2015 in criminal appeal No. 8/10 of 2014 title Bansi Ram vs. Ram Chand. Brief facts of the case 2. Brief facts of case are that Ram Chand complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 pleaded therein that complainant is proprietor of M/s Ankit Hire Purchase Private Limited Bharari Tehsil Ghumarwin District Bilaspur H.P. It is pleaded that complainant is running the business of financing the vehicles providing loan. It is pleaded that in the month of June 2009 accused approached the complainant for debt and complainant gave a sum of Rs.150000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only) as loan to accused. It is pleaded that accused assured to return the amount on or before March 2010. It is pleaded that accused did not return the loan amount and thereafter complainant approached the accused personally and accused issued cheque bearing No. 5025481 payable in H.P. State Cooperative Bank Branch at Ghumarwin District Bilaspur H.P. Thereafter complainant presented the cheque for encashment before H.P. State Cooperative Bank Branch at Ghumarwin but cheque was returned with memorandum of bank “Insufficient funds”. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant served the legal notice upon accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 but despite notice accused did not pay the debt amount. It is pleaded that accused be sent to imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs. 300000/- (Rupees three lacs only) be also imposed upon the accused. 3. Notice of accusation was given to accused by learned trial Court on 1.10.2011 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Complainant examined two witnesses i.e. CW1 Ram Chand and CW2 Sukh Dev and accused also examined one defence witness DW1 Labh Singh. 5. Learned trial Court on 23.12.2013 convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 and sentenced the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Learned trial Court also ordered that convict would pay compensation of Rs.150000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only) to complainant. 6. 5. Learned trial Court on 23.12.2013 convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 and sentenced the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Learned trial Court also ordered that convict would pay compensation of Rs.150000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only) to complainant. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned Appellate Court revisionist filed the present revision petition. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Following points arise for determination in present criminal revision petition:- Point No.1 Whether judgments of learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court are perverse and based upon non-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as alleged in memorandum of grounds of criminal revision petition and whether learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court have committed illegality? Point No. 2 Final Order. 9. Findings upon Point No. 1 with reasons 9.1 Complainant Ram Chand filed affidavit Ext.CW1/A in examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit Ext.CW1/A that deponent is proprietor of M/s Ankit Hire Purchase Private Limited Bharari Tehsil Ghumarwin District Bilaspur H.P. and deponent is running the business of financing the vehicles loan etc. There is recital in Ext.CW1/A that in the month of June 2009 accused being fast friend of deponent approached the deponent for debt and complainant in good faith advanced Rs.150000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only) as loan to accused without interest. There is recital in Ext.CW1/A that accused assured to return the debt amount on or before March 2010. There is further recital in Ext.CW1/A that accused did not return the debt amount and thereafter deponent approached the accused personally and accused issued cheque No. 5025481 payable in H.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited Branch at Ghumarwin. There is recital in Ext.CW1/A that thereafter cheque was presented for encashment but same was returned with memorandum of bank “Insufficient funds”. There is also recital in Ext.CW1/A placed on record that thereafter registered legal demand notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 was issued vide registered letter but despite demand notice accused did not pay the debt amount. CW1 has denied in cross examination that he has filed a false case. CW1 has denied suggestion that he obtained the blank cheque from revisionist. 9.2. CW1 has denied in cross examination that he has filed a false case. CW1 has denied suggestion that he obtained the blank cheque from revisionist. 9.2. CW2 Sukh Dev Manager H.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited Ghumarwin has stated that cheque Ext.C1 was received in bank on 1.6.2010 for encashment. He has stated that cheque was returned on same day on account of insufficient funds. He has stated that cheque was presented by Ram Chand. 9.3 DW1 Labh Singh has stated that he is residing at Bharari since fifteen years and he is mason by profession. He has stated that Bansi Lal accused is known to him because he has worked for construction of his house. He has stated that in his presence accused took debt of Rs. 50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). He has admitted that in the year 2009 accused was in dire need of money for admission of his son. He has stated that he does not know that in the year 2009 accused took loan of Rs.15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) from complainant for admission of his son. He has stated that he does not know that cheque was issued by accused. 10. Following documentary evidence adduced by complainant. (1) Ext.C1 is cheque to the tune of Rs.150000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only) issued in favour of complainant Ram Chand son of Shri Puran Chand signed by accused. (2) Ext.C2 is postal receipt. (3) Ext.C3 is memorandum issued by H.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited wherein it is mentioned that cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. (4) Ext.C4 is legal notice issued by complainant to accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 should contain following ingredients. (1) That there should be legally enforceable debt. (2) That cheque should be presented for encashment before bank within period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within period of its validity whatever is earlier.(3) That cheque was returned due to insufficiency of funds. (4) That demand notice of fifteen days was given. (1) That there should be legally enforceable debt. (2) That cheque should be presented for encashment before bank within period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within period of its validity whatever is earlier.(3) That cheque was returned due to insufficiency of funds. (4) That demand notice of fifteen days was given. (5) Failure of accused to pay debt amount despite receipt of demand notice within fifteen days. See (2008)4 SCC 54 title Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde. In present case it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that cheque Ext.C1 was issued by revisionist to non-revisionist. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that cheque was presented and same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds as per testimony of CW2 Sukh Dev Manager of H.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited Ghumarwin (H.P.). It is also proved on record that thereafter demand notice Ext.C4 was given to revisionist and it is also proved on record that despite demand notice the revisionist did not pay the amount due. In present case testimonies of CW1 complainant and CW2 Manager are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of CW1 and CW2. Testimonies of CWs and CW2 are corroborated with documentries evidence placed on record. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that blank cheque was obtained by complainant as security and on this ground revision petition filed by revisionist be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused cheque Ext.C1 placed on record. Cheque Ext.C1 is duly signed by revisionist. At the time of signing the cheque Ext.C1 revisionist was major and was in sound state of mind. Revisionist did not obtain any report from hand writing expert in order to prove that cheque Ext.C1 was not signed by him. It is held that by way of signing cheque Ext.C1 revisionist has admitted liability of antecedent debt. There is no recital in cheque Ext.C1 placed on record that cheque was given for security purpose only. It is proved on record that cheque was issued in connection with discharge of outstanding antecedent debt. It is held that by way of signing cheque Ext.C1 revisionist has admitted liability of antecedent debt. There is no recital in cheque Ext.C1 placed on record that cheque was given for security purpose only. It is proved on record that cheque was issued in connection with discharge of outstanding antecedent debt. It is well settled law that surety or guarantor are also liable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 in view of words “Any debt or other liability” mentioned under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. See (2016)3 SCC (Weekly) page 1 title Don Ayengia vs. State of Assam and another. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that he has issued the cheque to Shri D.K. Sharma Advocate and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Revisionist did not examine Mr. D.K. Sharma Advocate in present case in order to prove that cheque Ext.C1 was issued to Mr. D.K. Sharma Advocate. It is held that plea of revisionist that he had issued cheque Ext.C1 to Mr. D.K. Sharma is rejected on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that there is material contradiction between the pleadings and oral evidence and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the entire pleadings and Court has also perused oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. There is no material contradiction in present case which goes to the root of case. It is well settled law that concept falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal proceedings. See : AIR 1980 S.C. 957 title Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana. See AIR 1971 S.C. 2505 title Rai Singh Vs. The State of Haryana. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that testimonies of CWs 1 and 2 are not sufficient for conviction is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that conviction can be based on testimony of single witness if testimony of single witness is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. See : AIR 1973 SC 944 title Jose Vs. It is well settled law that conviction can be based on testimony of single witness if testimony of single witness is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. See : AIR 1973 SC 944 title Jose Vs. The State of Kerla (Full Bench). See AIR 2016 SC 310 (Weekly) title Sudip Kr.Sen alias Biltu vs. State of West Bengal. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that in view of testimony of DW1 Labh Singh revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. DW1 is not signatory to cheque Ext.C1. It is well settled law that contents of documents can be proved by person who is signatory or marginal witness of document as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. 17. Even as per Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 there is presumption in favour of holder but revisionist did not rebut the presumption as mentioned in Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. See AIR 2000 SC 145 title Anil Hada vs. Indian Acrylic Limited. Even as per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 there is presumption relating to (a) Consideration. (b) Date. (c) Time of acceptance. (d) Time of transfer. (e) Order of endorsement. (f) As to stamps. (g) Holder is a holder in due course. See (2008)7 SCC 655 title Mallavarupu Kasivisweswara Rao vs. Thadi Konda Ramulu Firm. Even as per Section 146 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 there is presumption relating to fact of dishonour of cheque when bank slip is issued by bank with remarks “Insufficient funds”. In present case bank slip Ext.C3 is issued by bank with remarks “Insufficient funds”. Even bank slip placed on record is also corroborated by testimony of CW2 i.e. Manager of Bank. Revisionist did not adduce any rebuttal evidence. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned trial Court has wrongly imposed the compensation to the tune of Rs.150000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand only) without any reason is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the judgment passed by learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence in positive cogent and reliable manner with reasons. There is no infirmity in judgment passed by learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court. Court has carefully perused the judgment passed by learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence in positive cogent and reliable manner with reasons. There is no infirmity in judgment passed by learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2(Final Order) 19. In view of findings on point No.1 revision petition is dismissed. File of learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Revision petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications if any also stands disposed of.