Admission of cheque issuance raises presumption of liability under NI Act Ss.118/139; rebuttal requires evidence beyond CrPC 313 denial. Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, not evidence reappreciation. Stop payment and successive presentations valid.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, 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 against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘NI’ Act). It was asserted that the accused agreed to sell a machine to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 9,36,000/- as an advance to the accused. The accused failed to deliver possession of the machine to the complainant, and he agreed to return Rs. 9,36,000/- so taken by him from the complainant. He issued a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant towards the partial discharge of his liability. He agreed to pay the remaining amount after some time. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant told this fact to the accused, and the accused requested the complainant to present the cheque again. The complainant presented the cheque again, but the bank dishonoured the cheque with the remarks ‘stop payment’. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused asking him to repay the amount. The notice was served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused as per the law.

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 himself (CW1) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. He claimed that Raju Chauhan had approached him to purchase the machine, and he had issued a cheque to the complainant and Raju Chauhan. He admitted that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. He also admitted that he had requested the complainant to present the cheque again, and it was dishonoured with the remarks ‘payment stopped’. He admitted that the notice was served upon him. He stated that he had paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant by bank draft. He stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence but failed to produce any evidence, and learned Trial Court closed the right to lead defence evidence on 15.09.2022.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed by the accused, and