ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present revision petition is filed against judgment of learned Sessions Judge Solan District Solan H.P. announced in Criminal Appeal No. 12-NL/10 of 2012 title Hamid Mohammad vs. Jaimal wherein learned Appellate Court affirmed judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court. Brief facts of the case: 2. Jaimal son of Hari Dass filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 pleaded therein that complainant obtained loan from bank for his personal use and after obtaining loan from bank accused approached complainant and told complainant that accused was in dire need of money. It is pleaded that complainant granted loan to accused to the tune of Rs. 93,000/- (Rupees ninety three thousand) and accused promised that he would pay back the loan amount along with interest within a period of one year. It is further pleaded that complainant approached the accused many times to repay the amount of loan but accused did not pay the amount of loan to complainant. Thereafter complainant convened a Panchayat in which accused acknowledged his liability to repay the loan amount and accused issued cheque No. 0005449 dated 30.10.2008 to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/- (Rupees one lac eight thousand) in favour of complainant which was payable at Bank of India Branch Panjehra. It is further pleaded that complainant presented the cheque for encashment but the cheque was dishonored on account of insufficient fund. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant issued demand notice to accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and notice was sent through registered AD and under postal certificate. It is further pleaded that after receipt of demand notice accused did not pay loan amount. Punishment of accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 sought. 3. Learned Trial Court after recording preliminary evidence of complainant summoned accused and thereafter notice of accusation was issued to complainant by learned trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Accused person did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Complainant examined two witnesses CW-1 and CW-2. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused did not lead any defense evidence. 4. Learned Trial Court on 16.10.2012 convicted and sentenced the revisionist for simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Learned Trial Court further directed that convict would pay compensation to complainant amounting to Rs. Complainant examined two witnesses CW-1 and CW-2. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused did not lead any defense evidence. 4. Learned Trial Court on 16.10.2012 convicted and sentenced the revisionist for simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Learned Trial Court further directed that convict would pay compensation to complainant amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty thousand). Feeling aggrieved against judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court accused filed appeal before learned Sessions Judge Solan and learned Sessions Judge Solan on dated 17.4.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court revisionist has filed the present revision petition. 5. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of revisionist and non-revisionists and Court also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination: 1) Whether judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court are perverse and based upon non appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and whether learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court have committed illegality as mentioned in memorandum of criminal revision petition? 2. Final order. 7. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7.1 CW-1 Kripa Shankar Saran Manager Bank of India Panjehra District Solan H.P. stated that Ext. C-3 is issued by Bank of India. He has stated that statement of accounts of accused is Ext. C-A which is prepared as per Bank Book Evidence Act which is correct as per original record. He has admitted that complainant Jaimal took loan from Bank of India Panjehra Branch. He has stated that accused Hamid Mohammad was guarantor and he has signed many documents as guarantor. 7.2 CW-2 Jaimal stated that he tendered into evidence affidavit Ext. CW-1/A. There is recital in the affidavit that complainant obtained loan from bank to the tune of Rs. 93,000/- (Rupees ninety three thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that accused requested complainant for loan and thereafter complainant granted loan to accused to the tune of Rs. 93,000/- (Ninety three thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that accused assured complainant that he would return loan amount within a period of one year. 93,000/- (Rupees ninety three thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that accused requested complainant for loan and thereafter complainant granted loan to accused to the tune of Rs. 93,000/- (Ninety three thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that accused assured complainant that he would return loan amount within a period of one year. There is further recital in the affidavit that despite several requests of complainant accused did not return the loan amount and thereafter a Panchayat was convened. There is further recital in the affidavit that accused agreed the liability of loan amount and thereafter issued cheque No. 0005449 dated 30.10.2008 to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/- (Rupees one lac eight thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that cheque was presented for encashment but same was returned back by the bank with remarks of insufficient fund. There is further recital in the affidavit that thereafter complainant issued demand notice to accused through registered letter but despite demand notice accused did not return the loan amount. 8. Following documentary evidence produced. (i) Ext. C-1 is original cheque to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/- dated 30.10.2008. (ii) Ext. C-2 is registered letter. (iii) Ext. C-3 is cheque return memo issued by Bank of India Panjehra Branch. (iv) Ext. C-4 is demand notice. (v) Ext. C-5 is postal receipt. (vi) Ext. C-6 is UPC. (vii) Ext. C-A is statement of accounts w.e.f. 1.10.2008 to 13.11.2008 relating to accused wherein total balance of Rs. 637/- shown in the name of accused in the bank account. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist that cheque in question was issued to the complainant as security and on this ground criminal revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 if any cheque is issued on account of other liability then provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 would be attracted. Court has perused original cheque Ext. C-1 dated 30.10.2008 placed on record. There is no recital in cheque Ext. C-1 that cheque was issued as security cheque. It is well settled law that cheque issued as security would also come under provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. See 2016 (3) SCC page 1 title Don Ayengia vs. State of Assam & another. C-1 dated 30.10.2008 placed on record. There is no recital in cheque Ext. C-1 that cheque was issued as security cheque. It is well settled law that cheque issued as security would also come under provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. See 2016 (3) SCC page 1 title Don Ayengia vs. State of Assam & another. It is well settled law that where there is conflict between former law and subsequent law then subsequent law always prevail. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist that legal notice issued to the revisionist was not served properly 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 notice Ext. C-4 was issued to revisionist vide postal receipt No. 9762 placed on record. Revisionist did not examine the Postman in order to prove that Postman did not visit the residential house of revisionist. There is report of Postman that Postman had visited the residential house of revisionist four times i.e. on 2.12.2008, 3.12.2008, 4.12.2008 and 5.12.2008. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist that oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the non-revisionists is contradictory and self-destructive is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the complainant. There is no material contradiction in the evidence adduced by the complainant which goes to the root of the case. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist that testimony of CW-1 and CW-2 are not sufficient for conviction of the revisionist in the present case is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimony of CW-1 and CW-2. Testimonies are trustworthy and reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. There are no reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of CW-1 and CW-2. Testimonies of CW-1 and CW-2 are corroborated with documentary evidence i.e. cheque Ext. C-1, registered letter Ext. C-2, cheque return memo Ext. C-3, demand notice Ext. C-4 and postal receipt Ext. C-5. Testimonies are trustworthy and reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. There are no reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of CW-1 and CW-2. Testimonies of CW-1 and CW-2 are corroborated with documentary evidence i.e. cheque Ext. C-1, registered letter Ext. C-2, cheque return memo Ext. C-3, demand notice Ext. C-4 and postal receipt Ext. C-5. Even as per provisions of Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 there is presumptions relating to (a) Consideration (b) Date (c ) Time of acceptance (d) Time of transfer (e) Order of endorsements (f) As to stamps (g) That holder is a holder in due course. Presumptions of Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 against the revisionist remained un-rebutted on record. Revisionist did not adduce any oral as well as documentary evidence in order to rebut the presumptions of Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Even as per Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 there is presumption in favour of holder of the cheque. Complainant is the holder of the cheque Ext. C-1. Cheque Ext. C-1 is duly signed by revisionist in sound state of mind. Revisionist was major when he signed the cheque. It is held that revisionist had admitted his liability of antecedent debt when revisionist signed the cheque Ext. C-1 placed on record. Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 there is legal presumption that cheque was issued for discharging of antecedent liability. See Anil Hada vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd. AIR 2000 Apex Court page 145. Revisionist did not adduce any oral as well as documentary evidence on record in order to rebut the presumption in favour of holder of cheque under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Point No.1 is decided against revisionist. Point No.2 Final Order: 13. In view of above findings criminal revision petition is dismissed. File of learned Trial Court and file of learned first Appellate Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Criminal revision petition is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.