In appeals against acquittal under NI Act s.138, High Court interferes only if perverse, misreads evidence, or sole guilt view possible; reasonable defence rebutting presumption warrants upholding acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Sirmour, at Nahan, (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 12.8.2011 and order of sentence dated 29.8.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Nahan, Sirmour, District at Nahan HP (learned Trial Court) were set-aside and the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). (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 appeal 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 NI Act. It was asserted that the complainant and the accused were known to each other. The accused demanded Rs.1.00 lac from the complainant on 2.8.2008. The complainant paid the amount, and the accused promised to repay it within four months. He issued a post-dated cheque of Rs.1.00 lac. He promised to return the amount and told the complainant that he could present the cheque in case of failure to repay the amount. The accused did not repay the amount, and the complainant presented the cheque, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant sent a notice to the accused asking him to repay the amount. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but the accused failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per law.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared before the Court, 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 Pradeep Tomar (CW1) and himself (CW2) to prove his case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had friendly relations with the complainant. He admitted that the cheque pertained to his bank and it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. He admitted that he had received the notice through UPC but denied the receipt of notice through registered post. He stated that he had issued a blank cheque as security. A false complaint was filed against him by misusing the cheque. He had taken only Rs.10,000/- from the complainant in the committee. He had returned Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. He examined Prem Chand Gupta (DW1) and Gurmeet Singh (DW2) to prove his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed, and a presumption arose that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, and the accused failed to repay the amount despite receipt of the notice of demand. The plea taken by the accused that the complainant was running the committee and the accused had issued the cheque was not proved. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,