For conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the accused. Insufficient connection leads to invalid liability.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition against the judgment dated 21.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned First Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner (appellant before the learned First Appellate Court) was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes Class, Court No.II, Una, District Una (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 Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(for short N.I.Act).It was asserted that the complainant intended to purchase a light motor vehicle to run it as a taxi. The accused visited the complainant’s village in January 2014 to attend the marriage of the complainant’s cousin. The complainant expressed his desire to purchase a vehicle, to which the accused assured him to do the needful. The accused asked the complainant to arrange an amount of Rs.3,30,000/-. The complainant handed over this amount to the accused on 23.03.2014 in the presence of Sunita and Rakesh Verma. The accused failed to purchase the vehicle as assured by him. The complainant asked the accused to purchase the vehicle or to return the amount. The accused issued a cheque of Rs.3,30,000/- drawn on UCO Bank Dulehra, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P. in the discharge of his legal liability. The complainant presented the cheque before his bank but it was dishonoured with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking him to pay the amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice; however, the accused failed to do so. Hence, the complaint was filed to take action against the accused.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reason 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 N.I.Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself (CW-1) to prove his case.

5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. stated that the complainant did not hand over any money to him. He had not handed over the cheque to the complainant. His cheque was stolen. He had filed the F.I.R. regarding the same. He had issued instructions to the bank not to honour the cheque. He did not receive any notice. He stated that he wanted to lead evidence in defence but subsequently, his counsel made a statement that the accused did not want to lead any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the cheque carries with it a presumption of consideration. The accused did not provide any evidence to rebut the presumption. He relied upon a copy of the daily diary report but the same was not proved. No explanation was provided as to how the complainant came into possession of the stolen cheque and obtained the signature of the accused. The cheque belongs to M/S Verma Scientific Company but non-impleadment of the proprietor will not make any difference. Hence, the accused was convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 13