SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 198

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Md. Abu Samad Choudhury S/o Late Akon Ali Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Md. Jamir Uddin S/o Md. Jafor Ali – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 203 of 2014
Decided On : 06-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : M. Choudhury, K. Choudhury, J. Hazarika
For the Respondents: U. Choudhury, B.M. Choudhury, H. Hazarika, R. Ullah, S.H. Bora

A cheque issued for repayment establishes liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused, who failed to provide sufficient evidence.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Complaint under Section 138 for dishonor of cheque - Conviction upheld with compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- - The accused issued a cheque for repayment of a loan, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds - Additionally, the defence plea of payment made to the complainant was not substantiated, and the trial court’s decisions were affirmed by the appellate authority. (Paras 2, 10, 18)

(B) Presumptions under the N.I. Act - Under Section 139, there is a presumption that a cheque was issued for consideration and it is the accused's duty to rebut this presumption, which they failed to do. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque which was later returned due to insufficient funds. Legal proceedings ensued after a demand for repayment was unmet. (Paras 2, 10)

Findings of Court:
The trial court established that the complainant proved the case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their conviction. The appellate court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings. (Paras 8, 18)

Issues: The main issues included whether the cheque was issued in consideration and the applicability of presumptions under the N.I. Act concerning the debt. (Paras 9, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of repayment and that the issuance of the cheque established a binding liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. (Paras 10, 18)

Result: Revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Table of Content
1. facts regarding the loan agreement and cheque issuance (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioners' arguments on financial difficulty and evidence (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's recognition of undisputed facts (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's analysis and conclusion on the case's merits (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. caution regarding courts comparing disputed signatures (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. discussion on forensic examination and its non-application (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. court's mandate on the revision power and evidence interpretation (Para 18)
8. final dismissal of the revision petition and court orders (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. M Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B M Choudhury along with Mr. U Choudhury, learned counsels, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No. 2.

2. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment and order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Crl. A. No. 62(N)/2013, upholding the judgment and order dated 14.06.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon in C.R. Case No. 2806/2009, convicting the petitioners, herein, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing them to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand), in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year.

3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present criminal revision petition is noticed as under:

The respondent No. 1, herein, had filed a complaint before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon, which was registered as C.R. Case No. 2806/2009 against the petitioners, herein, alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

As projected in the complaint, the petitioners, herein, being in need of money for investment in their NGO, had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) from the respondent No. 1 with a promise to return the same on demand along with a lump sum profit. The respondent No. 1, on making a demand for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioners, herein, had issued a cheque bearing No. 002888 dated 19.02.2009, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only, in the name of the respondent No. 1 drawn on Punjab National Bank. The respondent No. 1 deposited the cheque for encashment in his account maintained with the Nagaon Branch of Indian Bank, but the said cheque was returned on 13.03.2009 on the ground of insufficient fund in the account of the petitioners, herein. The said fact being brought to the notice of the petitioners, herein, they requested the respondent No. 1 to represent the cheque again after a few days. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 represented the cheque, however, the same was again returned on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioners.

The above development having taken place, the respondent No. 1 issued a demand notice dated 19.06.2009 to the petitioners, herein, by registered post with A/D. The petitioners, herein, on receipt of the said notice issued a reply thereto on 09.07.2009, inter- alia, admitting therein about issuance of the cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). However, a plea was taken therein that the amount involved in the cheque was paid to the respondent No. 1. However, as per agreement he did not return the cheque. The liability to pay the amount of cheque was denied and a demand was made of the respondent No. 1 to return the cheque as he had already received the payment against the same.

The respondent No. 1, herein, thereafter, instituted the complaint case before the learned Trial Court and the matter was considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon.

During the trial, the respondent No. 1 had examined 4 witnesses. Thereafter, the statements of the petitioners, herein, were recorded under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top