Revisional jurisdiction limited; no interference with concurrent conviction under NI Act S.138 absent perversity; presumption of debt under S.139 holds on signature admission unless rebutted by probable defence.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi (learned Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 111/2023/20-22 on 15.12.2023 vide which the judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2022 and the order of sentence dated 21.07.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog (learned trial Court) in Criminal Case No. 50 of 2017 were upheld. (The parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court for the sake of convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition 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 (for short “N I Act”). It was asserted that the accused was working as an insurance agent of Oriental Insurance Company. He insured the complainant’s vehicle bearing registration No. HP-65-2607; however, he reduced the insurance value of the vehicle from Rs. 9,00,000/- to Rs. 80,000/-. The complainant had paid the full amount to the accused, and the accused failed to insure the vehicle for its full value. The vehicle met with an accident. The accused promised to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to compensate the complainant and issued a cheque to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque at Punjab National Bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. The complainant issued a notice to the accused asking him to repay the money within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but the accused failed to repay the amount. Hence, a complaint was filed to take action against the accused.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his complaint.

5. Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. admitted that he was working as an insurance agent and he had insured the complainant’s bus bearing registration No. HP-65-2607. He stated that the amount might have been reduced from Rs. 9,00,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- due to a typing mistake. He admitted that he had entered into a compromise with the complainant to compensate him, but claimed that the complainant had not agreed to the compromise. He claimed that the complainant had snatched the cheque from him, and he had reported the matter to the police and the bank. He did not remember whether the cheque was signed by him. He admitted that he had received the notice. He stated that he was not liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-. He examined HHC Ravinder Kumar (DW-1), Smt. Rekha Sharma (DW-2), Mahender Lal Sharma (DW-3), himself (DW-4) and Kaul Ram (DW-5) to prove his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that