Admission of cheque signature triggers presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act of debt discharge; security cheques attract Section 138 liability on dishonour; accused must rebut with evidence beyond Section 313 CrPC statement; revisional jurisdiction limited.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.07.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 3.10.2024 and order of sentence dated 30.10.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhosuie, District Chamba 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 petition 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 parties were known to each other. The complainant advanced a loan of Rs.85,000/- to the accused. The accused issued a cheque of Rs.85,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Sihunta, to repay the debt. The complainant presented the cheque to her bank; however, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant sent a notice to the accused asking him to repay the amount within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice; however, the accused failed to repay the money. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court 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 herself (CW1) to prove her complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, admitted his signature on the cheque. He claimed that he had issued a blank, signed cheque in favour of the complainant as security. He stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence, but failed to produce any evidence despite repeated opportunities, and the learned Trial Court closed the opportunity to lead defence evidence on 24.09.2024.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted his signature on the cheque, and a presumption would arise that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the liability. The burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The plea taken by the accused that he had issued the cheque as security would not help him because a security cheque also attracts the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. The accused failed to lead any evidence to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. A notice was served upo