GOPAL SHARMA Vs. ANURAG SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both, the Courts below, wherethrough, both convicted, and, consequently sentenced the petitioner herein (for short "accused"), for, a charge, under, Section 138 of the negotiable instruments Act.

(2.) The dishonored negotiable instrument, is, embodied in Ex. P-1, and, upon presentation of the afore Ex. P-1, before the banker concerned, it through memo borne in Ex. P-2, stood declined, to be honoured, by the banker concerned.

(3.) Be that as it may, the holder of the afore dishonored negotiable instrument i.e complainant/respondent No. 1 herein, (a) is, leveraged with the statutory presumption, borne in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, (b) and, wherethrough he is empowered, to, make a valid espousal, qua, his holding it, in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, or, other liabilities, arising or subsisting inter-se him, and, the accused. However, the afore statutory presumption is rebuttable, and, it is trite law, (c) that the onus of adducing potent discharging evidence, for, rebutting the afore leverage, as, bestowed, upon the holder of Negotiable instrument, is, also encumbered upon the accused. It is also trite expostulation of law, that, the afore onus, is, discharge-able, through, suggestions being meted to the complainant's witnesses, or, through apt cogent oral and documentary evidence, hence, being adduced, after, completion of proceedings, drawn, under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.