Material alteration in cheque's payee account number without drawer's consent or authentication renders it void under Section 87 NI Act; complainant bears burden to explain; rebuts presumptions under Sections 118(a)/139 leading to acquittal under Section 138.

JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.1.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 14.10.2022 and order of sentence dated 17.10.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (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 (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is engaged in banking activities. The accused approached the complainant for availing a loan vide application dated 10.1.2015. The complainant provided financial assistance to the accused in the form of a Consumable Durable Loan vide Account No. CD/6033. The accused failed to repay the amount as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The complainant requested the accused to repay the amount, and he issued a cheque of Rs.7.00 lacs drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Solan, to repay the amount. The complainant presented the cheque to its Bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant issued a legal notice asking the accused to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The registered AD containing the notice was returned with the endorsement ‘unclaimed’. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per 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 K.C. Sharma (CW1) to prove his case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had taken a loan from the bank. He stated that the complainant-Bank had taken five cheques from him as security. He had deposited Rs.6.00 lacs, but the complainant misused the cheques issued by him. No notice was received by him. He examined Harish Kumar (DW1) in support of his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the issuance of the cheque. He also admitted that he had taken a loan from the bank. He failed to repay the amount and issued a cheque to discharge his liability. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The defence evidence proved that the accused had deposited Rs.6.00 lacs in his loan account on 16.8.2016 and Rs.16.00 lacs on 31.3.2021; however, this amount was deposited after the dishonour of the cheque and will not wipe out the offence. The notice was deemed to be served upon the accused. Hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and was sentenced to undergo simple impri