Signature admission on cheque raises presumption of debt under NI Act; accused must rebut by preponderance even if blank security cheque; revisional jurisdiction limited, upholds concurrent findings absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.05.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (Camp at Karsog)(learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, 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 accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant bank in the year 2015, for land development. He issued a cheque of Rs.53,400/- drawn on HPGB, Branch Pangna, on 09.04.2021 to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. The complainant served a notice upon the accused, asking him to repay the amount. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount. Hence, a complaint was filed against the accused for taking action against him 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 S.K. Bhardwaj (CW-1) to prove its case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant. He stated that ten blank signed cheques were taken from him at the time of sanctioning the loan. He admitted his signatures over the cheque and claimed that the cheque was misused by the complainant. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque; therefore, the presumption would arise under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, that the cheque was issued for consideration in discharge of the debt/liability. The burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption; however, the accused failed to do so by the cross- examination of the complainant’s witness or by leading any evidence. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of insufficient funds. The notice was issued at the correct address and is deemed to be served. All the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act were satisfied. Hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under of the NI Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.55,000/- for the loss sustained by the complainant.

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 Court). Learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque, and a presumption