been simply mentioned in one line that the defence in order to contest the claim of the complainant, has cross-examined the prosecution witness and also examined four witnesses. Thereafter, the learned trial court proceeded to discuss the evidences of the defence witnesses one by one from paragraph no.12 to 15, but the cross-examination of the defence witnesses has also not been recorded. Thereafter, the learned trial court in paragraph 16 recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the defence and recorded the finding from paragraph 17 onwards. Paragraph 18 to 24 deal with the law regarding presumption in the matter of issuance of cheque with reference to Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and recorded finding at paragraph 25 held that the complainant through the complaint petition and oral testimony has alleged that the accused incurred liability of Rs.450,000/when he was working for him for distribution of daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” and in order to discharge the aforesaid liability, the accused issued a cheque no.003239 dated 12.01.2016 drawn on I.D.B.I Bank, Gumla branch in favour of the complainant and recorded a finding that it was established un-rebutted from oral and documentary that the cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant was dishonoured and returned due to insufficiency of funds; legal notice was issued, but the accused did not respond to the notice within 15 days nor discharged his liability and hence the accused became liable for punishment under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and the complaint petition was filed within one month after the issue of the demand notice, that is on 23.02.2016.
