Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, not reappreciating evidence. Section 139 NI Act presumption of debt from admitted cheque issuance rebuttable only by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; accused's failure to lead evidence upholds conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.8.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 3.8.2023 and order of sentence dated 7.8.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kangra, District Kangra, 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 a body corporate engaged in the business of banking. The complainant advanced a car loan of Rs.2,04,288/- on 28.6.2006 to the complainant. The accused failed to repay the amount as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The amount of Rs.2,79,373.63 was due till 31.5.2010. The accused issued a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Kangra on 1.6.2010 to repay the amount. The complainant presented the cheque to the Bank, but it was dishonoured with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking him to repay the money; however, the accused failed to pay any amount despite the receipt of notice. 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 Ajay Kumar (CW1) and Rajnish Sharma (CW2) 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 of Rs.2,04,288/- from the complainant on 28.6.2006. He denied the rest of the complainant’s case. He stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence; however, he failed to produce any evidence despite repeated adjournments and his right to lead evidence was closed by the order of the Court on 5.4.2023.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the taking of a loan. The statement of Ajay Kumar (CW1) that the accused had issued the cheque to discharge his liability was not challenged in the cross-examination, and the same was to be accepted as correct. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The accused received the notice, but failed to repay the amount. 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. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compe