Presumption under Section 139 NI Act rebutted by account statement and cross-examination showing no legally enforceable debt due to unproven excessive interest; revisional court set aside perverse conviction ignoring such evidence. (24 words)

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 02.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 13.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were partly 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 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is dealing in the financing of commercial vehicles on a hire-purchase/ lease/ loan cum hypothecation basis. The accused sought financing for his vehicle bearing registration No. HP 33A-8916. The complainant advanced a loan of Rs. 2,40,000/-, through an agreement dated 31.12.2010. The accused accepted the terms and conditions, including overdue charges, as per the hire purchase/ loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. The accused failed to repay the money. He issued a cheque of Rs. 4,70,000/- on 20.12.2013, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Pandoh to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque for its realisation, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused asking him to repay the money within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for taking action 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 Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined Maan Singh (CW-1) to prove its case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, stated that a false case was made against him. He owed nothing to the complainant. He stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence, but subsequently declined to lead any defence evidence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque was duly proved, and there is a presumption that the cheque was issued for consideration in discharge of the liability. The accused failed to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Even if the cheque was issued as security, the complainant had the authority to present it. The notice was served upon the accused but he failed to repay the amount; 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 imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of Rs. 8,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month, for the commission of the aforesaid offence.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi (learned Appellate Co