Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, no reappreciation absent perversity; presumption of debt under NI Act holds post cheque admission unless robustly rebutted; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if underlying debt persists.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 27.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2024 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court no. 1, Solan District Solan (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 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 accused issued a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused, asking him to pay the amount. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he 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 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 herself (CW-1) to prove her complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had issued the cheque to the complainant. He stated that he had entered into an agreement to sell the property to the complainant. The property was not partitioned and was to be sold only after the partition. He had handed over the cheque as security; the complainant presented the cheque before the partition of the property. He examined Neeraj Sharma (DW1) and Mahindra Kumar (DW2) to prove his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the issuance of the cheque. 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 presumption. The plea taken by him that he had issued a security cheque was not probable. The statements of defence witnesses were not sufficient to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The notice was duly served upon the accused, who had failed to repay the amount. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay a compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- to the complainant.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant and accused filed separate appeals, which were decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learne