A cheque that exceeds the permissible limit as per RBI policy is void; lower courts erred in conviction without recognizing this fact.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.10.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra, at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra District Kangra H.P. (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 revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). It was asserted that the complainant and the accused had a friendly relationship with each other. The accused approached the complainant at the Nagrota Bagwan on 10.09.2011 and sought a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for his domestic needs. The complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused on the same day through Cheque No. 394621, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Nagrota Bagwan, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. The accused issued a post-dated cheque No. 613701 dated 19.12.2011 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India to discharge his liability. He also executed an agreement acknowledging his liability in the presence of marginal witnesses. This agreement was attested by Mr Yashpal Kachhot, Notary Public at Kangra. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, State Bank of India, branch office Ghorab (Nagrota Bagwan), District Kangra, H.P., from where it was sent to the bank of the accused for collection. The bank of the accused dishonoured the cheque with an endorsement of insufficient funds. The complainant issued a notice to the accused asking him to pay the money within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was duly received by the accused, but he failed to pay the amount. Hence, the present complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused.

3. 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 NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined Anil Kumar (CW1) and himself (CW2).

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-from the complainant, the complainant had presented the cheque, and it was dishonoured with an endorsement of insufficient funds. He stated that he had handed over three signed cheques as security to the complainant, which were misused by the complainant. He had returned Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest and was liable to pay only Rs. 30,000/-. His signatures were obtained on blank paper. He denied the receipt of the notice. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the taking of a loan in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He also admitted the issuance of the cheques as security. Therefore, a presumption would arise that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The accused claimed that he had returned Rs. 1,20,000/-; however, this fact was not proved. The accused had failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. He admitted that