Admission of cheque signature raises NI Act presumptions of debt discharge (ss.118(a),139); accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Security/blank signed cheques attract s.138 liability despite holder filling or signature mismatch dishonour. Revisional court limited to perversity.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Rajgarh, District Sirmour, 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 (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is a body corporate running the banking business. The accused availed a loan facility from the complainant. She defaulted on the repayment of the loan. She issued a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rajgarh, towards the part payment of the outstanding loan amount. The complainant presented the cheque, but it was dishonoured with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused, but the accused failed to repay the amount; hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court 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 her for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined Vijay Kumar (CW-1) to prove its case.

5. The accused, in her statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that she had availed a loan from the complainant. She admitted her signature on the cheque. She stated that she had failed to repay the amount because she was ill. She stated that a security cheque was given, which was misused by the bank. However, she did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the issuance of the cheque and her signature on it. Therefore, a presumption arose that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The burden shifted upon the accused to rebut the presumption, however, she failed to discharge the burden. The plea taken by the accused that the blank cheque was given to the complainant, which was filled in by the complainant, would not help her because the complainant had sufficient authority to fill the amount of the cheque. A security cheque would also attract the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The notice was duly served upon the accused, and she failed to repay the amount despite the