UMESH PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 29.01.2016 passed by Special Judge-07 in Crl. Appeal No. 02/15 whereby petitioner's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act) has been upheld.

(2.) Vide judgment dated 20.04.2015, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court and vide order on sentence dated 23.04.2015, he was directed to pay fine of Rs.25 lacs, out of which Rs.24 lacs was to be paid to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.PC and the remaining amount of Rs.1 lakh was to be deposited with the State, and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo SI for three months.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was employed with the complainant. The petitioner used to collect the payments on behalf of the complainant from his clients, who was also dealing in the business of real estate as well as shares. As the petitioner used to collect payments at the instance of the complainant, the petitioner was asked to give blank cheque to the complainant as security, which was subsequently filled up by the complainant to initiate the present proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submitted that the petitioner had been able to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and in this regard relied upon the testimony of the complainant to submit that the complainant has failed to prove the loan transaction.