Revisional jurisdiction limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity. NI Act presumptions u/ss 118,139 arise on cheque admission; accused must rebut with evidence. No initial complainant burden for debt, capacity or corroboration. Signed blank cheque attracts presumption.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, 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, 1881 (in short, 'NI Act'). It was asserted that the parties had good relations. The accused needed money to run his transport business. He sought financial help from the complainant. The complainant advanced Rs.2,70,000/- to the accused. The accused issued a post-dated cheque for Rs.2,70,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Nalagarh, to discharge his debt. The complainant deposited the cheque at his bank, and it was dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficient funds'. The complainant issued a demand notice to the accused asking him to pay the amount of Rs.2,70,000/-within 15 days. Notice was served upon the accused on 3.7.2019, but he failed to pay the money. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court against the accused for taking action as per 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 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 Cr. P.C., did not dispute his signature on the cheque and the service of notice upon him. He did not produce any evidence in 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 accused failed to produce any evidence to rebut the presumption. It was suggested by the accused to the complainant that the accused had paid Rs.20,000/- to the complainant against liability, which corroborated the complainant's version that the accused had a subsisting liability towards the complainant. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficient funds”, and the notice was duly served upon the accused. All the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act were duly satisfied. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under of the NI Act, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and, in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for on