JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. Heard Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.7.2005, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2005, whereby and whereunder judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 1087 of 1999, convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and releasing him after admonition and directing the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, has been affirmed. 3. It appears that a complaint case was instituted against the petitioner and two other persons alleging that they are partners of a coal supply business. It is alleged that during the month of March-April 1999, complainant had supplied coal to the accused persons worth Rs. 73,828/-, out of which, an amount of Rs. 39,000/- was paid and balance amount of Rs. 34,824 was remaining outstanding. Allegation has been levelled that when the complainant demanded the payment, accused nos. 1 and 2 had issued a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- drawn on the Canara Bank and when the same was presented, it got dishonored on account of insufficiency of fund. A legal notice was issued but when in spite of the same, amount was not returned, complainant was constrained to file a complaint case, in which after enquiry, cognizance was taken for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial, two witnesses were examined by the complainant. 5. C.W-1-Nawal Kishore Choudhary is the complainant, who has supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has proved the cheque, which was marked as Ext-1 and on recall under section 311 Cr.P.C., he has proved photo copy of original legal notice, which was marked as Ext-2. Postal receipts were marked as Ext-3 and 3/1 and the cheque return memo dated 15.10.1999 has been marked as Ext-4. This witness has stated that the cheque, which was submitted, got dishonored due to insufficiency of fund, which led to institution of a complaint case. 6. C.W-2-Dilip Mandal has stated that he had gone to the office of petitioner no. 1 and he had issued a cheque of Rs. This witness has stated that the cheque, which was submitted, got dishonored due to insufficiency of fund, which led to institution of a complaint case. 6. C.W-2-Dilip Mandal has stated that he had gone to the office of petitioner no. 1 and he had issued a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the complainant, which ultimately got dishonored. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had not been able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. It has further been submitted that petitioner has been implicated only on account of a commercial dispute. Learned counsel submits that coal supply business was being carried on by the petitioner and other accused persons but merely the petitioner has been implicated whereas two other accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial court. 8. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant that it was the petitioner, who had issued a cheque of Rs. 20,000/-, which subsequently got dishonored and in spite of legal notice, neither did he reply nor the amount was returned. C.W-1 and C.W-2 are very consistent with respect to issuance of cheque of Rs. 20,000/- which ultimately got dishonored leading to institution of complaint case. Evidence of the informant thus being consistent and corroborative to each other has proved the case of the complainant beyond all reasonable doubt and considering the said fact, learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had released him after due admonition and directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. Learned appellate court also on the basis of the materials available on record had upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. 10. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed