The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is strong and can only be rebutted by substantial evidence, which the accused failed to provide.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.04.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, vide which the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2022 and order of sentence dated 24.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, Court No.1, District Bilaspur (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition 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 (in short ‘NI Act’). It was asserted that the complainant had advanced a loan of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused on 24th April 2013 as a working capital/CC limit. The accused issued a cheque on 30th July 2016 for Rs.3,25,787 to return the loan. The complainant presented the cheque for collection on 30th July 2016, but the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. The complainant issued a notice to the accused on 13th August 2016. The accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of the notice; hence, the complaint was filed to take action against the accused as per the law.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, 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 T D Sharma (CW1) to prove its case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the complainant. He stated that he had no liability to pay. The witness of the complainant deposed falsely against him. He was innocent. He stated that he wanted to lead the defence evidence. He did not produce any evidence despite having been granted sufficient opportunities; hence, his evidence was closed by the order of the Court on 04.07.2022.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused did not dispute his signatures on the cheque. There is a presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability for valid consideration. The accused failed to rebut the presumption on the balance of probability. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Notice was sent to the accused, and he failed to pay the amount despite the deemed receipt of the notice. Hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay a compensation of Rs.4,20,000/-

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability, and the accused had failed to rebut the presumption contained in Section 139 of the NI Act. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of the notice. He was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the petitioner/accused has filed the present revision, asserting that the learned Courts below did not properly appreciate the material placed before them. There was no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. Learned Courts below erred in relying upon the testimony of the complainant and drawing unwarranted inferences. The complainant had failed