Admission of cheque issuance triggers Ss.118(a),139 NI Act presumptions of debt; accused must rebut by evidence, not mere 313 CrPC denial. Signature mismatch and security cheques for existing liability attract S.138. Revisional court upholds concurrent findings absent perversity; fine compensatory.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, (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 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 an agriculturist who cultivates potatoes. The accused No.1 purchased potatoes from the complainant in November 2021, worth Rs. 6,00,000/- by paying cash and potatoes worth Rs. 7,05,000/- on credit. The accused assured to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- after a few days. The complainant approached the accused for the payment of the amount. The accused issued a cheque of Rs. 3,50,000/- drawn on Yes Bank, signed by accused No.1. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was returned unpaid with an endorsement ‘drawer's signatures differs’. The complainant told the accused about the dishonour of the cheque. The accused issued another cheque of Rs. 3,55,000/- dated 03.02.2022 drawn on Yes Bank. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘drawers' signatures differ’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused, asking them to pay the amount. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but they failed to repay the amount. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused Dheeraj Kumar 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 himself (CW-1) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. He stated that he had not purchased anything on credit and had transferred the whole amount to the complainant’s account. He had handed over a blank signed security cheque to the complainant and told him to present the cheque in case of failure to repay the amount. However, he had paid the whole amount to the complainant. He stated that he wanted to lead the defence evidence. However, a statement was made on his behalf subsequently that no evidence was to be led.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the issuance of the cheque. The plea taken by him that he had issued a blank, signed security cheque was not proved by any evidence on record. There is a presumption that the cheque was issued for consideration in discharge of the debt/liability. The burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumptio