Admission of cheque triggers presumption of debt under NI Act Sections 118(a), 139; security cheques attract Section 138 if liability exists; rebuttal by preponderance needed, not mere denial; revisional jurisdiction limited, upholds concurrent findings absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Banjar, District Kullu, 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 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 accused availed a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- for the tank irrigation scheme. He issued a cheque of Rs. 81,280/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Dhalpur, Kullu, to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque in its bank, but it was returned with the remarks “funds insufficient”. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused requiring him to repay the amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount; hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per 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 NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined Jagdish Chand (CW-1) to prove its case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., stated that he had issued a blank cheque as security at the time of taking the loan. The cheque was misused by the complainant. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the issuance of the notice; therefore, a presumption would arise that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the liability, and the burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused did not lead any evidence and relied upon his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to substantiate his defence; however, the statement recorded under of Cr.P.C. is not evidence, and the accused was required to lead some evidence to prove his version. Hence, he had failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. Even if the cheque was issued as a security, it will attract the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act, hence the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and pay a compensation of Rs.90,000/- for loss suffered by the complainant.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal, which was de