The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove the cheque's issuance for a legal liability, which was not successfully rebutted.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.) :

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 28.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, District Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and order dated 16.07.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First, Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The 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 revision 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 (for short N.I.Act). It was asserted in the complaint that the accused is engaged in the business of sale/purchase of land. He came to know that the complainant intended to purchase land at Amb. He contacted the complainant and told her that he had a plot in the heart of the Amb. The accused showed the plot to the complainant on 02.04.2025 and told her that he was the owner of the plot. The sale consideration is settled as Rs.25,00,000/-. The accused called the complainant on 05.04.2015 and told her that he required Rs.10,00,000/- as part-payment of the sale consideration. The complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- and the accused assured to execute the sale deed on 10.4.2015. The complainant visited Amb on 10.04.2015 but the sale deed could not be executed as the accused was not found to be the owner of the land. The complainant demanded Rs.10,00,000/- paid by her to the accused. The accused issued a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.04.2015 and asked her to present it after 25.04.2015. The complainant presented the cheque on 27.04.2015 but it was dishonoured with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant issued a notice asking the accused to pay Rs.10,00,000/- within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused but the accused failed to pay the amount. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon 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 N.I.Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined Abhishek Bhardwaj (CW-1) and herself (CW-2) to prove her case.

5, The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. He stated that he had handed over a cheque as a guarantee. He had not received any legal notice. A blank cheque was issued because of a land dispute with the complainant for her satisfaction. He examined Surjeet Singh Dadwal (DW-1), Sawraj Pal Sharma (DW-2) and Kamal Kumar (DW-3) in his defence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the cheque carried with it a presumption of consideration and the burden shifted upon the accused to disprove the presumption. His plea that the cheque was issued by him as a guarantee regarding some earlier transaction of the land was not sufficient to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’ and notice was duly served upon the accused. The accused failed to pay the amount, hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, pay a compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- and in default of the payment of the fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.

7. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the cheque carri