Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1308 (HP)

Nathu Ram v. Devinder Singh

2019-09-05

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant criminal revision petition filed under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 19.9.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2017, affirming judgment of conviction/sentence dated 6.12.2016/7.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Complaint No. 1299-I of 2013/236-I of 2015 (old), 571-I of 2016 (2013)(571-II of 2016(2013) (New), whereby court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act') convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- to the respondent, and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') instituted a complaint under S.138 of the Act in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that in the month of March, 2013, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and assured to return the same within a period of one month. After expiry of said period, accused, with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- Ext. CW-1/B in favour of the complainant, however the fact remains that aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Complainant, after receipt of memo from the Bank concerned, served accused with legal notice Ext. CW-1/D, calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated period but since the accused failed to make the payment good within the period prescribed in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under S.138 of the Act in the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment/order of conviction recorded by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned first appellate Court, who vide judgment dated 19.9.2017, dismissed the appeal, as a consequence of which, judgment/order of conviction passed by learned trial Court came to be upheld. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment/order of conviction recorded by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned first appellate Court, who vide judgment dated 19.9.2017, dismissed the appeal, as a consequence of which, judgment/order of conviction passed by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking his acquittal after setting aside impugned judgments of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Courts below. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the matter, it may be noticed that the case at hand repeatedly came to be adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the accused enabling him to make the payment good qua cheque in issue, but till date, no amount has been paid in terms of judgment passed by trial Court, which otherwise stands affirmed by learned first appellate Court. 6. On 1.5.2019, Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for the accused stated before this Court that since accused is not coming forward to impart instructions, he may be permitted to withdraw his Power of Attorney. This Court having taken note of the aforesaid prayer made by Mr. Maan Singh, issued bailable warrants against the accused. On 19.6.2019, bailable warrants issued against accused came to be received back duly executed with the report that the accused is lodged in Central Jail, Nahan. Accused in his statement given to the Police categorically stated that he has already engaged Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate to represent him in the Court. In view of aforesaid, case at hand is being heard finally. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Courts below while holding accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate appearing for the accused that both the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court finds from the record that the complainant has successfully proved on record that the accused, with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque Ext. CW-1/B amounting to Rs.1.00 Lakh, which ultimately came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, as is evident from memo Ext. CW-1/B amounting to Rs.1.00 Lakh, which ultimately came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, as is evident from memo Ext. CW-1/C issued by the Bank concerned. Though, Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for the accused while making this Court to peruse the defence taken by accused made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that since the complainant failed to prove source of money, courts below ought not have accepted the complaint having been filed under S.138 of the Act, but this Court is not inclined to accept aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the accused, for the reason that issuance of cheque as well as signatures thereupon have not been denied specifically by the accused. Moreover, it is well settled by now that it is not necessary for the complainant in proceedings under S.138 to prove the source of money. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, Cr. Appeal No. 508 of 2019, decided on 15th March, 2019, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in view of statutory presumptions as contemplated under Ss.118 and 139 of the Act, onus is shifted upon accused and unless accused discharges onus by leading evidence on record as to show preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, complainant's case cannot be disbelieved for want of evidence regarding source of funds for advancing as loan to the accused. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has held as under: "17. In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the Trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the Trial Court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. This approach of the Trial Court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused-appellant. The aspect relevant for consideration had been as to whether the accused-appellant has brought on record such facts/material/circumstances which could be of a reasonably probable defence. 19. Hereinabove, we have examined in detail the findings of the Trial Court and those of the High Court and have no hesitation in concluding that the present one was clearly a case where the decision of the Trial Court suffered from perversity and fundamental error of approach; and the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. The observations of the Trial Court that there was no documentary evidence to show the source of funds with the respondent to advance the loan, or that the respondent did not record the transaction in the form of receipt of even kachcha notes, or that there were inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant and his witness, or that the witness of the complaint was more in know of facts etc. would have been relevant if the matter was to be examined with reference to the onus on the complaint to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. These considerations and observations do not stand in conformity with the presumption existing in favour of the complainant by virtue of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Needless to reiterate that the result of such presumption is that existence of a legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant. When such a presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not. When such a presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not. The other observations as regards any variance in the statement of complainant and witness; or want of knowledge about dates and other particulars of the cheques; or washing away of the earlier cheques in the 23 rains though the office of the complainant being on the 8th floor had also been of irrelevant factors for consideration of a probable defence of the appellant. Similarly, the factor that the complainant alleged the loan amount to be Rs. 22,50,000/- and seven cheques being of Rs. 3,00,000/- each leading to a deficit of Rs. 1,50,000/-, is not even worth consideration for the purpose of the determination of real questions involved in the matter. May be, if the total amount of cheques exceeded the alleged amount of loan, a slender doubt might have arisen, but, in the present matter, the total amount of 7 cheques is lesser than the amount of loan. Significantly, the specific amount of loan (to the tune of Rs. 22,50,000/-) was distinctly stated by the accused-appellant in the aforesaid acknowledgment dated 21.03.2017." 8. Though, the accused in his statement made under S.313 CrPC, has stated that neither any money was borrowed by him from the complainant nor any cheque was issued in favour of the complainant but, as has been take note herein above, no plausible evidence has been led on record to deny signatures upon the cheque in question. Accused though made an attempt to carve out a case that the cheque in question was issued to one Smt. Ram Chandi and complainant connived with said Ram Chandi and filed the complaint, but neither said Ram Chandi ever came to be examined nor accused led any specific evidence with regard to aforesaid defence taken by him, despite having been afforded opportunity by the court. Accused also tried to set up a case that cheque in question never came to be issued towards discharge of any lawful liability, but he has not been able to rebut the statutory presumption under Ss.118 and 139 of the Act ibid, in favour of holder of the cheque i.e. complainant. Accused also tried to set up a case that cheque in question never came to be issued towards discharge of any lawful liability, but he has not been able to rebut the statutory presumption under Ss.118 and 139 of the Act ibid, in favour of holder of the cheque i.e. complainant. Once signatures on the cheque are not disputed rather stand duly admitted, aforesaid plea with regard to cheques having not been issued towards discharge of lawful liability, rightly came to be rejected by learned Courts below. Reliance is placed upon Hiten P. Dalal v. Bartender Nath Bannerji, (2001) 6 SCC 16 , wherein it has been held as under: "The words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted......" 9. Complainant, while examining himself as CW-1 tendered his evidence by way of evidence, Ext. CA, specifically deposing therein that the accused approached him and demanded Rs.1.00 Lakh, which was given to him and accused, with a view to discharge his legal liability, issued Cheque Ext. CW-1/B. Said cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement on memo i.e. 'insufficient fund' (Ext. CW-1/C). Complainant also deposed that legal notice (Ext. CW-1/D) was issued by him to the accused but despite that accused failed to return the aforesaid amount to the complainant. Complainant in his cross-examination, specifically denied the suggestion put to him that the accused had not issued the cheque in question to him. Complainant also examined CW-3, Ramesh Kumar Postman, who categorically deposed that the registered letter Ext. CW-1/D was delivered to the accused. Registered delivery letter is Ext. CW-3/A. 10. Cw-2 Roshan Lal, Dealing Hand of Union Bank of India, Bhunter proved statements of account (Ext. CW-2/A). 11. Though, in the case at hand, record reveals that the defence counsel made an attempt to carve out a case that the complainant has failed to prove on record that cheque Ext. Registered delivery letter is Ext. CW-3/A. 10. Cw-2 Roshan Lal, Dealing Hand of Union Bank of India, Bhunter proved statements of account (Ext. CW-2/A). 11. Though, in the case at hand, record reveals that the defence counsel made an attempt to carve out a case that the complainant has failed to prove on record that cheque Ext. CW-1/B was issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of legal liability but as has been noticed herein above, there is no specific denial, if any, with regard to signatures of the accused on the cheque in question. When signatures on the cheque in question are not denied, there is statutory presumption as envisaged under Ss.118 and 139 of the Act, in favour of holder of cheque i.e. complainant. 12. Having carefully perused the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by complainant, this Court is convinced and satisfied that that the complainant has successfully proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had drawn cheque in question for consideration and issued the same in discharge of legally enforceable liability towards complainant. Evidence led on record by complainant proves beyond doubt that cheque Ext. CW-1/B was presented by complainant for encashment with the Banker of the accused and same was dishonoured on account insufficient funds vide Ext. CW-1/C. 13. Similarly, complainant has also proved that he had issued legal notice Ext. CW-1/D prior to instituting complaint under S.138 demanding cheque amount from the accused, as is clearly evident from the postal receipt, Ext. CW-1/E. Acknowledgement Ext. CW-1/F, which bears signatures of accused clearly proves that notice was received by the accused but despite having received the same, he failed to make the payment good within stipulated period. All the ingredients of S.138 of the Act stand duly proved in the case at hand as such, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below, as such, same do not call for an interference 14. In view of above, the petition at hand is dismissed being devoid of merit. Judgment passed by learned Court below is upheld. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused stand cancelled. In view of above, the petition at hand is dismissed being devoid of merit. Judgment passed by learned Court below is upheld. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused stand cancelled. JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant criminal revision petition filed under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC, lays challenge to judgment dated 19.9.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2017, affirming judgment of conviction/sentence dated 6.12.2016/7.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Complaint No. 1299-I of 2013/236-I of 2015 (old), 571-I of 2016 (2013)(571-II of 2016(2013) (New), whereby court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act') convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- to the respondent, and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') instituted a complaint under S.138 of the Act in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that in the month of March, 2013, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and assured to return the same within a period of one month. After expiry of said period, accused, with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- Ext. CW-1/B in favour of the complainant, however the fact remains that aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Complainant, after receipt of memo from the Bank concerned, served accused with legal notice Ext. CW-1/D, calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated period but since the accused failed to make the payment good within the period prescribed in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under S.138 of the Act in the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 3. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment/order of conviction recorded by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned first appellate Court, who vide judgment dated 19.9.2017, dismissed the appeal, as a consequence of which, judgment/order of conviction passed by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking his acquittal after setting aside impugned judgments of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Courts below. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the matter, it may be noticed that the case at hand repeatedly came to be adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the accused enabling him to make the payment good qua cheque in issue, but till date, no amount has been paid in terms of judgment passed by trial Court, which otherwise stands affirmed by learned first appellate Court. 6. On 1.5.2019, Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for the accused stated before this Court that since accused is not coming forward to impart instructions, he may be permitted to withdraw his Power of Attorney. This Court having taken note of the aforesaid prayer made by Mr. Maan Singh, issued bailable warrants against the accused. On 19.6.2019, bailable warrants issued against accused came to be received back duly executed with the report that the accused is lodged in Central Jail, Nahan. Accused in his statement given to the Police categorically stated that he has already engaged Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate to represent him in the Court. In view of aforesaid, case at hand is being heard finally. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Courts below while holding accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. In view of aforesaid, case at hand is being heard finally. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Courts below while holding accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate appearing for the accused that both the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court finds from the record that the complainant has successfully proved on record that the accused, with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque Ext. CW-1/B amounting to Rs.1.00 Lakh, which ultimately came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, as is evident from memo Ext. CW-1/C issued by the Bank concerned. Though, Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for the accused while making this Court to peruse the defence taken by accused made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that since the complainant failed to prove source of money, courts below ought not have accepted the complaint having been filed under S.138 of the Act, but this Court is not inclined to accept aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the accused, for the reason that issuance of cheque as well as signatures thereupon have not been denied specifically by the accused. Moreover, it is well settled by now that it is not necessary for the complainant in proceedings under S.138 to prove the source of money. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, Cr. Appeal No. 508 of 2019, decided on 15th March, 2019, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in view of statutory presumptions as contemplated under Ss.118 and 139 of the Act, onus is shifted upon accused and unless accused discharges onus by leading evidence on record as to show preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, complainant's case cannot be disbelieved for want of evidence regarding source of funds for advancing as loan to the accused. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has held as under: "17. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has held as under: "17. In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the Trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the Trial Court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused-appellant. The aspect relevant for consideration had been as to whether the accused-appellant has brought on record such facts/material/circumstances which could be of a reasonably probable defence. 19. Hereinabove, we have examined in detail the findings of the Trial Court and those of the High Court and have no hesitation in concluding that the present one was clearly a case where the decision of the Trial Court suffered from perversity and fundamental error of approach; and the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. The observations of the Trial Court that there was no documentary evidence to show the source of funds with the respondent to advance the loan, or that the respondent did not record the transaction in the form of receipt of even kachcha notes, or that there were inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant and his witness, or that the witness of the complaint was more in know of facts etc. would have been relevant if the matter was to be examined with reference to the onus on the complaint to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. These considerations and observations do not stand in conformity with the presumption existing in favour of the complainant by virtue of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Needless to reiterate that the result of such presumption is that existence of a legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant. These considerations and observations do not stand in conformity with the presumption existing in favour of the complainant by virtue of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Needless to reiterate that the result of such presumption is that existence of a legally enforceable debt is to be presumed in favour of the complainant. When such a presumption is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not. The other observations as regards any variance in the statement of complainant and witness; or want of knowledge about dates and other particulars of the cheques; or washing away of the earlier cheques in the 23 rains though the office of the complainant being on the 8th floor had also been of irrelevant factors for consideration of a probable defence of the appellant. Similarly, the factor that the complainant alleged the loan amount to be Rs. 22,50,000/- and seven cheques being of Rs. 3,00,000/- each leading to a deficit of Rs. 1,50,000/-, is not even worth consideration for the purpose of the determination of real questions involved in the matter. May be, if the total amount of cheques exceeded the alleged amount of loan, a slender doubt might have arisen, but, in the present matter, the total amount of 7 cheques is lesser than the amount of loan. Significantly, the specific amount of loan (to the tune of Rs. 22,50,000/-) was distinctly stated by the accused-appellant in the aforesaid acknowledgment dated 21.03.2017." 8. Though, the accused in his statement made under S.313 CrPC, has stated that neither any money was borrowed by him from the complainant nor any cheque was issued in favour of the complainant but, as has been take note herein above, no plausible evidence has been led on record to deny signatures upon the cheque in question. Accused though made an attempt to carve out a case that the cheque in question was issued to one Smt. Ram Chandi and complainant connived with said Ram Chandi and filed the complaint, but neither said Ram Chandi ever came to be examined nor accused led any specific evidence with regard to aforesaid defence taken by him, despite having been afforded opportunity by the court. Accused also tried to set up a case that cheque in question never came to be issued towards discharge of any lawful liability, but he has not been able to rebut the statutory presumption under Ss.118 and 139 of the Act ibid, in favour of holder of the cheque i.e. complainant. Once signatures on the cheque are not disputed rather stand duly admitted, aforesaid plea with regard to cheques having not been issued towards discharge of lawful liability, rightly came to be rejected by learned Courts below. Reliance is placed upon Hiten P. Dalal v. Bartender Nath Bannerji, (2001) 6 SCC 16 , wherein it has been held as under: "The words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted......" 9. Complainant, while examining himself as CW-1 tendered his evidence by way of evidence, Ext. CA, specifically deposing therein that the accused approached him and demanded Rs.1.00 Lakh, which was given to him and accused, with a view to discharge his legal liability, issued Cheque Ext. CW-1/B. Said cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement on memo i.e. 'insufficient fund' (Ext. CW-1/C). Complainant also deposed that legal notice (Ext. CW-1/D) was issued by him to the accused but despite that accused failed to return the aforesaid amount to the complainant. Complainant in his cross-examination, specifically denied the suggestion put to him that the accused had not issued the cheque in question to him. Complainant also examined CW-3, Ramesh Kumar Postman, who categorically deposed that the registered letter Ext. CW-1/D was delivered to the accused. Registered delivery letter is Ext. CW-3/A. 10. Cw-2 Roshan Lal, Dealing Hand of Union Bank of India, Bhunter proved statements of account (Ext. CW-2/A). 11. Though, in the case at hand, record reveals that the defence counsel made an attempt to carve out a case that the complainant has failed to prove on record that cheque Ext. Registered delivery letter is Ext. CW-3/A. 10. Cw-2 Roshan Lal, Dealing Hand of Union Bank of India, Bhunter proved statements of account (Ext. CW-2/A). 11. Though, in the case at hand, record reveals that the defence counsel made an attempt to carve out a case that the complainant has failed to prove on record that cheque Ext. CW-1/B was issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of legal liability but as has been noticed herein above, there is no specific denial, if any, with regard to signatures of the accused on the cheque in question. When signatures on the cheque in question are not denied, there is statutory presumption as envisaged under Ss.118 and 139 of the Act, in favour of holder of cheque i.e. complainant. 12. Having carefully perused the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by complainant, this Court is convinced and satisfied that that the complainant has successfully proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had drawn cheque in question for consideration and issued the same in discharge of legally enforceable liability towards complainant. Evidence led on record by complainant proves beyond doubt that cheque Ext. CW-1/B was presented by complainant for encashment with the Banker of the accused and same was dishonoured on account insufficient funds vide Ext. CW-1/C. 13. Similarly, complainant has also proved that he had issued legal notice Ext. CW-1/D prior to instituting complaint under S.138 demanding cheque amount from the accused, as is clearly evident from the postal receipt, Ext. CW-1/E. Acknowledgement Ext. CW-1/F, which bears signatures of accused clearly proves that notice was received by the accused but despite having received the same, he failed to make the payment good within stipulated period. All the ingredients of S.138 of the Act stand duly proved in the case at hand as such, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below, as such, same do not call for an interference 14. In view of above, the petition at hand is dismissed being devoid of merit. Judgment passed by learned Court below is upheld. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused stand cancelled.