It is vigorously submitted by Mr. Farhauddin, learned counsel that the petitioner did not have any liability towards the O.P. No. 1 and had no reason to issue cheque in question in discharge of its liability. The cheque was issued as the co-lateral security together with other cheques aggregating Rs.5,55,000/-. Learned Appellate Court failed to consider the said aspect and passed the judgment and order of conviction without appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Trial Court could not even appreciate the fact that in terms of agreement for lease as on 7th December, 1997 the liability was Rs.1,39,957/- and not the cheque amount in question. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was not proper. I perused the impugned judgment of learned appellate Court and I find discussion in detail that the cheque in question was issued only towards discharge of part liability of the accused persons in favour of the complainant company, the total liability being Rs.13,88,000/- and against the sum there was a security deposit of Rs.5,55,000/- and thus learned Appellate Court quite rightly refused to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. Though it is argued that the cheque in question was issued as co-lateral security, there is nothing to substantiate such claim of Mr. Farhauddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. It goes without saying that when the petitioner intends the Court to believe that the cheque was issued as a co-lateral security, under Section 103 of the Evidence Act onus lies upon the person who wishes the Court to believe such fact. I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner failed to discharge such onus. Under such circumstances, I do not
