The presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to prove the contrary if the cheque's signature is admitted, which was not done in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.08.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were referred before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant and the accused are brothers-in-law in relation. The accused required money to pay the loan from the H.P. State Cooperative Bank Branch at Rajgarh. The accused approached the complainant in September 2011 and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant for one year. The complainant advanced the loan. The accused issued a post-dated cheque No. 713405 (Ext. CW2/A) for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-drawn on HP State Cooperative Bank Habban Branch for discharging his legal liability. The complainant presented the cheque for collection before his bank namely HP State Co-operative Bank, Rajgarh. The cheque was sent to the bank of the accused. However, the bank of the accused dishonoured the cheque with the endorsement ‘insufficient balance’. Memo (Ext. CW2/B) was issued by the bank of the accused. The cheque and the memo were returned to the complainant by the bank of the complainant with the memo (Ext. CW/1C). The complainant issued a legal notice (Ext. CW3/B), which was sent through registered post. Postal Receipt (Ext. CW3/C) was obtained. The accused failed to repay the amount despite the receipt of the notice. Hence, the complaint was filed before the Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons for summoning the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined three witnesses to prove his case. Sitanshu Vermani (CW1) proved that the complainant presented a cheque in his bank. Amrander Kumar (CW2) proved that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Babu Ram (CW3) is the complainant.

5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of the complainant in its entirety. He stated that he had given the cheque to his brother-in-law who had some financial transaction with the complainant. He admitted that the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement of ‘insufficient funds’. He stated that he had not received any legal notice. He had never borrowed any money from the complainant. He examined Ashok Kumar (DW1) in his defence.

6. The Learned Trial Court held that the complainant’s version that the accused had i