ORDER : Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P., for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – 2, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur on 29.01.2005 in C/1 Case No. 985 of 2000 by which the petitioner had been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as also to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been affirmed. 3. A complaint case was instituted in which it was alleged that a friendly loan was taken by the petitioner from the complainant of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in lieu of the same the petitioner had issued five post dated cheques each of Rs. 20,000/-. It is alleged that on the due dates the cheques were deposited before the bank but all the cheques got dishonoured which constrained the complainant to send a legal notice on 22.09.2000 which was received but since the amount was not returned, a complaint was filed. After the complaint case was instituted and an enquiry was conducted and subsequent thereto cognizance was taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the complainant. 5. P.W. -1, Chandra Shekhar Bhaskar Rao, is the complainant who had deposed that he had given friendly loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- against which five cheques were given by the petitioner which have been marked as Exhibit – 1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/ 4. He had stated that the cheques were presented and all were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. He had further stated that a legal notice was send which was marked as Exhibit – 2 and the acknowledgement of the petitioner on the legal notice has been marked as Exhibit – 3. 6. C.W. 2, Budheswar Machua, has supported the case of the complainant. 7. He had further stated that a legal notice was send which was marked as Exhibit – 2 and the acknowledgement of the petitioner on the legal notice has been marked as Exhibit – 3. 6. C.W. 2, Budheswar Machua, has supported the case of the complainant. 7. C.W. 3, O. Velayubhain, was the Manager of State Bank of India, Sonari Branch who had stated that the cheques presented by the complainant were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds which were intimated to the complainant by issuing a memo. 8. C.W. 4, Ashok Kumar Jha, was the Senior Assistant of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Jamshedpur who had stated that the cheques were dishonoured which was intimated to the complainant. 9. The defence has examined two witnesses in support of its case. 10. D.W. 1, Rajesh Sharma, had deposed that all the five cheques were given to the complainant as security which fact has also been stated by D.W. 2, S. Sudhakar Rao, the complainant of the present case. 11. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for dishonour of five cheques one case could not have been filed as separate cause of action arises for dishonour of separate cheques. It has also been submitted that the legal notice issued did not contain the cheque number and, therefore, the notice being flawed could not be termed to be a notice in the strict sense of the term. Learned counsel thus submits that since the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act have not been followed, the petitioner deserves acquittal from the criminal prosecution. 12. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 13. After considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. and on going through the lower court records, it appears that the legal notice was sent within the statutory period. The notice intimated to the petitioner about the dishonour of the cheques and his duty to discharge the loan which was taken by him from the complainant. The issuance of cheques by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party no. 2 is an admitted fact. Therefore, it was a burden upon the petitioner to prove that the cheques were misused or that he had paid the amount. The petitioner failed to prove either and, therefore, presumption has to be drawn against the petitioner. The issuance of cheques by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party no. 2 is an admitted fact. Therefore, it was a burden upon the petitioner to prove that the cheques were misused or that he had paid the amount. The petitioner failed to prove either and, therefore, presumption has to be drawn against the petitioner. The witnesses have categorically stated about the taking of friendly loan from the complainant by the petitioner for which five cheques were given and which got dishonoured due to insufficiency of founds. On such admitted facts the issue raised by the petitioner with respect to instituting a separate case appears to be hyper technical and a ploy to thwart the complainant from getting the legitimate claim. 14. The circumstances enumerated above, thus would lead to a conclusion that the complainant has been able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. So far as the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, it seems that he has remained in custody for more than six months. Therefore, there is no question of reduction in the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner. 15. Consequently, in view of what has been discussed above, this application stands dismissed.