ORDER : 1. Instant Cr. Revision petition filed under S. 397 read with S. 401 Cr.P.C. lays challenge to judgment dated 12.3.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh (camp at Paonta Sahib) in Cr. Appeal No. 54-N/10 of 2019, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.5.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, in Cr. Case No. 270/2017, whereby learned court, while holding the 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 years and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,24,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant’) and in default of payment of compensation, accused had been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the complainant instituted a complaint under S.138 of the Act, in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2 Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, stating therein that in January, 2017, accused entered into an agreement with the complainant to purchase Tata Indigo car bearing Registration No. HP-17C-5207. Accused also agreed to pay balance installments alongwith over dues amounting to Rs. 2,25,000, which was financed by Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. With a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 084434 dated 11.5.2017, for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Union bank of India, Paonta Sahib in favour of the complainant. However, the fact remains that said cheque on presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. After receipt of memo from the bank concerned, the complainant served accused with a legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good. Since the accused failed to make payment within the time period stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under S.138 of the Act, in the competent court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led on record by parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 138 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 4. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led on record by parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under 138 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan (camp at Paonta Sahib), which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.3.2020. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting judgments of conviction and order of sentence, recorded by learned Courts below. 5. Vide order dated 1.7.2020, this court while suspending the substantive imposed by learned trial Court, directed the accused to deposit 50% of compensation amount and furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in the like amount to eh satisfaction of learned trial Court. Vide order dated 26.7.2021, this court extended the time as was prayed for on behalf of the petitioner to do the needful, by two weeks, but neither the compensation amount has been deposited nor bail bonds have been furnished by the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner despite written communications is not coming forward to impart instructions and as such, matter may be heard and decided on merit. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused material available on record this court finds that the accused in his statement recorded under S.313 Cr.P.C. admitted the factum with regard to his having entered into an agreement in January, 2017 with complainant for purchase of Tata Indigo car bearing Registration No. HP-17C-5207. Accused admitted that he had agreed to pay the balance amount/installments and over-dues of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the Financer i.e. Shri Ram City Finance Company Limited. Interestingly, in the case at hand, accused took altogether contrary pleas. On one hand, he stated that he has no dealing with complainant and he has not issued the cheque in question, but on the other hand, he admitted the factum with regard to issuance of cheque in favour of finance company. He admitted that the amount in cheque was filled by him. On one hand, he stated that he has no dealing with complainant and he has not issued the cheque in question, but on the other hand, he admitted the factum with regard to issuance of cheque in favour of finance company. He admitted that the amount in cheque was filled by him. Issuance of cheque and signatures thereupon are not at all disputed by the accused, rather, it is apparent from the statement of the accused recorded under S. 313 Cr.P.C. that he has issued cheque in question but he has not been able to explain that if he had issued cheque to finance company then how it came in the hands of complainant. 8. CW-1 Shamshad Ali in his statement deposed that he knew the accused for the last five years and he had entered into an agreement with him for purchase of Tata Indigo car bearing Registration No. HP-17C-5207 for Rs. 2,25,000 and had undertaken to pay overdue installments of vehicle to the finance company. He deposed that the accused issued cheque dated 11.5.2017 (Exhibit CW-1/A), amounting to Rs. 2,25,000 but the same was dishonoured on 27.6.2017 and was returned to him vide memo Exhibit CW-1/B for want of funds. He deposed that after having received memo Exhibit CW-1/B, he served the accused with legal notice dated 5.9.2017 Ext. CW-1/C. Copy of registered letter is Exhibit CW-1/D, AD is Ext. CW-1/E and postal receipt is Ext. CW-1/T. In his cross-examination, this witness though admitted his having not produced any document pertaining to agreement in the court but stated that the insurance value of vehicle was Rs. 3,50,000/-. He admitted that he had agreed to sell vehicle for Rs. 2,25,000 to the accused. He admitted that the vehicle was financed by Shri Ram City Finance Co. Ltd. and he had liability to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- to the finance company. While admitting that he had no transaction with accused and it was pertaining to finance company, this witness self stated that in case the amount is not paid by the accused then the amount is to be paid by him. This witness, while categorically denying suggestion put to him that Ext. CW-1/A was issued by an employee of the finance company, self stated that the cheque was issued by the accused. This witness, while categorically denying suggestion put to him that Ext. CW-1/A was issued by an employee of the finance company, self stated that the cheque was issued by the accused. This witness admitted that the Finance Company had filed case against him, which is pending, however, clarified that the case was pertaining to installment not paid by Rattan Chand, therefore case was instituted against him. 9. Interestingly, statement made by aforesaid witness i.e. complainant, nowhere suggests that the accused was able to shatter his testimony, especially with regard to issuance of cheque as well as his signatures thereupon. Specific suggestion put to the complainant that the cheque was issued by employee of finance company was specifically denied by the complainant. Though the complainant admitted in his cross-examination that he has no transaction with the accused person but he has nowhere admitted that the cheque in question was issued to finance company rather stated that if amount is not paid by the accused then the same is to be paid by the complainant. 10. As has been taken note herein above, accused, who despite having been afforded opportunity failed to lead evidence in his defence, stated in his statement recorded under S.313 Cr.P.C. that in the month of January, 2017, he had entered into an agreement with the complainant for purchasing Tata Indigo car and had agreed to pay balance installment and over-dues of Rs. 2,25000 to the Finance Company. 11. It is quite apparent from the pleadings and evidence available on record, that the accused failed to discharge liability of Rs. 2,25000 towards finance company and finance company filed a case against him. If accused had no liability towards the complainant, it is not understood how the cheque bearing his signatures and of his account number came in the hands of the complainant, rather record reveals that neither Rs. 2,25,000 as agreed to be paid to finance company by the accused ever came to be deposited nor cheque issued in favour of complainant was honoured. 12. Though the accused took a defence that he has not filled in the amount but same is of no relevance, especially, once he has admitted signatures upon the same. 2,25,000 as agreed to be paid to finance company by the accused ever came to be deposited nor cheque issued in favour of complainant was honoured. 12. Though the accused took a defence that he has not filled in the amount but same is of no relevance, especially, once he has admitted signatures upon the same. Though, factum with regard to issuance of cheque in favour of complainant has been specifically denied by the accused but he has been unable to explain that if he did not tissue cheque to complainant how it reached the complainant. 13. Section 118 and 139 of the Act clearly provide that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability. True, it is that to rebut aforesaid presumption accused can always raise probable defence either by leading some positive evidence or by referring to the material, if any adduced on record by the complainant. 14. Once issuance of cheque and signatures thereupon are not denied, presumption starts in favour of holder of cheque and once such presumption starts, onus shifts upon the person issuing the cheque. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106 , wherein, it has been held as under: “18. 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. In order to discharge his burden, the accused put forward the defence that in fact, he had had the monetary transaction with the said Shri Jagdishbhai and not with the complainant. In view of such a plea of the accused-appellant, the question for consideration is as to whether the accused-appellant has shown a reasonable probability of existence of any transaction with Shri Jagdishbhai? In this regard, significant it is to notice that apart from making certain suggestions in the cross-examination, the accused-appellant has not adduced any documentary evidence to satisfy even primarily that there had been some monetary transaction of himself with Shri Jagdishbhai. Of course, one of the allegations of the appellant is that the said stamp paper was given to Shri Jagdishbhai and another factor relied upon is that Shri Jagdishbhai had signed on the stamp paper in question and not the complainant. 19.1 We have examined the statement of Shri Jagdishbhai as also the said writing on stamp papers and are unable to find any substance in the suggestions made on behalf of the accused-appellant. 19.2 The said witness Shri Jagdishbhai, while pointing out his acquaintance and friendship with the appellant as also with the respondent, asserted in his examination-in-chief, inter-alia, as under: “Accused when he comes to our shop where the complainant in the matter Shashimohan also be present that in both the complainant and accused being our friends, were made acquaintance with each other. The accused had necessity of money in his business, in my presence, had demanded Rs. 22,50,000/- (Rupees twenty two lacs fifty thousandly) on temporary basis. And thereafter, the complainant from his family members by taking in piecemeal had given to the accused in my presence. Thereafter, on demanding the money by the complainant, the accused had given seven (7) cheques to the complainant in our presence but such cheques being washed out in rainy water and on informing me by the complainant I had informed to the accused. Thereafter, Rohitbhai had given other seven (7) cheques to the complainant in my presence and the deed was executed on Rs. Thereafter, Rohitbhai had given other seven (7) cheques to the complainant in my presence and the deed was executed on Rs. 100/- stamp paper in there is my signature.” 19.3 This witness was cross-examined on various aspects as regards the particulars in the writing on the stamp paper and the date and time of the transactions. In regard to the defence as put in the cross-examination, the witness stated as under: “I have got shop in National Plaza but in rain no water logging has taken place. It is not true that there had been no financial dealings between me and the accused today. It is not true that I had given rupees ten lacs to the accused Rohitbhai on temporary basis. It is not true that for the amount given to the accused, I had taken seven blank duly cheques also blank stamp paper without signature. It is not true that there was quarrel between me and the accused in the matter of payment of interest. It is not true that even after the payment of Rs. ten lacs and the huge amount of the interest in the matter of interest quarrel was made. It is not true that due to the reason of quarrel with the accused, in the cheques of the accused lying with me by making obstinate writing has filed the false complaint through Shashimohan Goyanka. It is not true that no financial dealings have taken place between the complainant and the accused. therefore I also the complainant both at the time of evidence the accused at what place, on what date at what time, the amount taken has not been able to make clearly (sic). It is not true that the blank stamp paper duly signed were lying in which obstinate writing has been made therefore the same has not been registered through sub registrar. It is not true that the dealings have been made between me and accused therefore there is my signature and the signature of the accused and the complainant has not signed. It is not true that any types of dealings between the accused and the complainant having not been done in my presence therefore in my statement no clarification has been given. It is not true that the accused in my presence as mentioned in the complaint any cheque has not been given. It is not true that any types of dealings between the accused and the complainant having not been done in my presence therefore in my statement no clarification has been given. It is not true that the accused in my presence as mentioned in the complaint any cheque has not been given. It is not true that I in collusion with the complainant to usurp the false amount the false complaint has been filed through Shashimohan Goyanka. It is not true that in support of the complaint of Shashimohan Goyanka is giving false statement.” 19.4 The statement of Shri Jagdishbhai does not make out any case in favour of the accused-appellant. It is difficult to say that by merely putting the suggestion about the alleged dealing to Shri Jagdishbhai, the accused-appellant has been able to discharge his burden of bringing on record such material which could tilt the preponderance of probabilities in his favour. 19.5 The acknowledgement on the stamp paper as executed by the appellant on 21.03.2007 had been marked with different exhibit numbers in these 7 cases. In Complaint Case No. 46499 of 2008, the same is marked as Ex.54 and reads as under: “Today the executor I Rohit Patel Ranchhodray Masala is a partner. Due to the financial difficulties having been arised, I have taken Rs. 22,500,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand fifty thousand only sic) from my group which are to be paid to Shashimohan Goyanka. With reference to that today I have given seven (7) cheques of Corporation Bank, Alkapuri Branch bearing No. 763346 to 762252 amounting to Rs. 22,50,000/- (Rupees twenty two lacs fifty thousand only) Dates: (1) 01.04.2008, (2) 01.05.2008, (3) 01.07.2008, (4) 01.08.2008, (5) 01.10.2008, (6) 01.11.2008 and (7) 01.12.2008 the account of which is 40007. Earliest these cheques were given but due to rainy water logging the said cheques having been washed out (7) cheques have again been given which is acceptable to me.” 19.6 The fact of the matter remains that the appellant could not deny his signatures on the said writing but attempted to suggest that his signatures were available on the blank stamp paper with Shri Jagdishbhai. This suggestion is too remote and too uncertain to be accepted. No cogent reason is available for the appellant signing a blank stamp paper. This suggestion is too remote and too uncertain to be accepted. No cogent reason is available for the appellant signing a blank stamp paper. It is also indisputable that the cheques as mentioned therein with all the relevant particulars like cheque numbers, name of Bank and account number are of the same cheques which form the subject matter of these complaint cases. The said document bears the date 21.03.2007 and the cheques were post-dated, starting from 01.04.2008 and ending at 01.12.2008. There appears absolutely no reason to discard this writing from consideration. 19.7 One of the factors highlighted on behalf of the appellant is that the said writing does not bear the signature of the complainant but and instead, it bears the signatures of said Shri Jagdishbhai. We find nothing unusual or objectionable if the said writing does not bear the signatures of the complainant. The said writing is not in the nature of any bi partite agreement to be signed by the parties thereto. It had been a writing in the nature of acknowledgement by the accused-appellant about existence of a debt; about his liability to repay the same to the complainant; about his having issued seven post-dated cheques; about the particulars of such cheques; and about the fact that the cheques given earlier had washed away in the rain water logging. Obviously, this writing, to be worth its evidentially value, had to bear the signatures of the accused, which it does. It is not unusual to have a witness to such a document so as to add to its authenticity; and, in the given status and relationship of the parties, Shri Jagdishbhai would have been the best witness for the purpose. His signatures on this document, therefore, occur as being the witness thereto. This document cannot be ruled out of consideration and existing this writing, the preponderance of probabilities lean heavily against the accused-appellant.” 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat, has categorically held that if the accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. To raise probable defence, accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat, has categorically held that if the accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. To raise probable defence, accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant. Needless to say, if the accused/drawer of the cheque in question neither raises a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding commission of the offence comes into play. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant Paras No. 23 to 25 of the judgment herein: “23. Further, a three judge Bench of this Court in the matter of Rangappa vs. Shri Mohan held that Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies the strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of the cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. The Court however, further observed that it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose money is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof.” The Court further observed that it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is all preponderance of probabilities. 24. Therefore, if the accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is inconceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce the evidence of his/her own. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is inconceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce the evidence of his/her own. If however, the accused/drawer of a cheque in question neither raises a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, obviously statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act regarding commission of the offence comes into play if the same is not rebutted with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant. 25. It is no doubt true that the dishonour of cheques in order to qualify for prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act precedes a statutory notice where the drawer is called upon by allowing him to avail the opportunity to arrange the payment of the amount covered by the cheque and it is only when the drawer despite the receipt of such a notice and despite the opportunity to make the payment within the time stipulated under the statute does not pay the amount, that the said default would be considered a dishonour constituting an offence, hence punishable. But even in such cases, the question whether or not there was lawfully recoverable debt or liability for discharge whereof the cheque was issued, would be a matter that the trial court will have to examine having regard to the evidence adduced before it keeping in view the statutory presumption that unless rebutted, the cheque is presumed to have been issued for a valid consideration. In view of this the responsibility of the trial judge while issuing summons to conduct the trial in matters where there has been instruction to stop payment despite sufficiency of funds and whether the same would be a sufficient ground to proceed in the matter, would be extremely heavy.” 16. In the case at hand, accused has not been able to rebut the presumption of issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant, to the contrary complainant has proved successfully that he and accused entered into agreement for sale-purchase of vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-17C-5207, for Rs. 2,25,000/- and the accused had undertaken to pay overdue installments to finance company. Besides above, accused issued cheque dated 11.5.2017 amounting to Rs. 2,25,000/- and the accused had undertaken to pay overdue installments to finance company. Besides above, accused issued cheque dated 11.5.2017 amounting to Rs. 2,00,000 but the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused, vide Ext. CW-1/E. 17. Complainant has successfully proved that before instituting complaint under S. 138 of the he served accused with legal notice, Ext CW-1/C and same was duly served upon him as is evident from Ext CW-1/D, CW-1/E and CW-1/F. 18. Having carefully examined the evidence available on record, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by the courts below, which otherwise appear to be based upon the correct appreciation of evidence and as such, same need to be upheld. Moreover, this Court has a very limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the courts below. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452 , wherein it has been held as under: “In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” 19. Since after having carefully examined the evidence in the present case, this Court is unable to find any error of law as well as fact, if any, committed by the courts below while passing impugned judgments and as such, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional power. 20. Since after having carefully examined the evidence in the present case, this Court is unable to find any error of law as well as fact, if any, committed by the courts below while passing impugned judgments and as such, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional power. 20. True it is that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnan and Another vs. Krishnaveni and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 241 , has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order, but learned counsel representing the accused has failed to point out any material irregularity committed by the courts below while appreciating the evidence and as such, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by the courts below. 21. Having scanned entire evidence available on record, this court is convinced and satisfied that complainant has successfully proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence that the accused issued cheque in question for discharge of his lawful liability, but the same came to be dishonored on account of insufficient funds in his account. Since despite issuance of legal notice, accused failed to make good the payment, learned court below in the totality of evidence led on record by the complainant, rightly held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of act and as such, no interference in the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence is called for. Moreover, this court, repeatedly granted opportunity to the petitioner/accused to deposit the amount but neither he furnished personal bonds nor deposited amount. 22. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Impugned judgments/order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below are upheld. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court forthwith to serve the sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court, if not already served. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are cancelled.