Revisional jurisdiction narrowly confines to errors of law or perversity, upholding conviction for cheque dishonour based on accused's admissions under Section 313 CrPC; zero balance via NPA transfer and security nature do not negate liability under Section 138 NI Act; compensation fine moderated.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 2.5.2019, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.12.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP (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 (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act. It is engaged in banking activities through its various branches, and one such branch is located at Ghumarwin. The accused approached the complainant bank for a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. He completed various formalities, and the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant defaulted on the repayment of the loan. He issued a cheque of Rs.30,000/- in partial discharge of his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank, but it was dishonoured with the endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused asking him to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was delivered to the accused on 24.6.2017, but he failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per the law.

3. The 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 Sangeeta Gautam (CW1) to prove its complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had approached the bank for the loan and the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. He admitted that he had defaulted in the repayment of the loan, and he had issued a cheque in partial discharge of his liability. He admitted that the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and a notice was served upon him. He stated that a case was registered against him as he had not deposited the money in time. He had deposited Rs.26,000/- and sought two months to make the payment. He stated that he wanted to lead the defence evidence; however, he failed to produce the evidence, and the learned Trial Court closed his evidence on 30.10.2018.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the taking of a loan, issuance of the cheque, its dishonour and the receipt of the notice. The accused stated that a case was made against him because he had failed to repay the amount on time. The accused had failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. All the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI were duly satis