Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sohan Lal Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Kumar Gupta And Another - Respondents
Cr. Revision No. 95 of 2016
Decided On : 19-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonoured for insufficient funds; lower courts convicted under s.138 ni act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. accused claims lost cheque misused; complainant defends concurrent convictions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction limited; no reappreciation absent perversity or error. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. all section 138 ni act ingredients duly satisfied by evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. presumptions under sections 118(a) and 139 ni act arise. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. lost cheque defence fails without bank notice or evidence. (Para 26 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. cross-examination suggestions falsify accused's defence version. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 8. signature mismatch triggers section 138 ni act liability. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. six months imprisonment and compensation sentence adequate. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. revision lacks merit and stands dismissed. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.03.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 02.11.2015 and order of sentence dated 07.11.2015, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, 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 against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, ‘NI Act’). It was asserted that the accused issued a cheque of Rs.2,65,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank in favour of the complainant to discharge his liabilities. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused on 11.01.2013. The accused sent a reply to the notice but did not pay any amount. 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 himself (CW1) and Nitin Verma (CW2) to prove his complaint.
5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, denied the case of the complainant. He stated that he had not issued any cheque to the complainant. He had no liability towards the complainant. He had lost the cheque and lodged the FIR at the Police Station. He examined Veer Singh (DW1) and HHC Chet Ram (DW2) to prove his defence.
6. The learned Trial Court held that the testimony of the complainant was acceptable. The plea taken by the accused that he had lost the cheque was not believable. He never informed the bank about the loss of the cheque. The accused had failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. 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 six months and pay a compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- to the complainant.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the evidence of the complainant was satisfactory and the accused had failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. The accused did not inform the bank about the loss of the cheque, and his plea that he had misplaced the cheque was not believable.
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; presumption under NI Act Sections 118,139 not rebutted by mere denial or police report without bank intimation; concurrent findings upheld where defence....
Signature admission on cheque triggers Sections 118(a),139 NI Act presumption of debt discharge; accused must rebut by evidence, mere denial insufficient; revisional jurisdiction limited, no interfer....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption of debt under NI Act ss118(a),139; accused's lost cheque plea fails without bank report; revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, upholding conc....
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 de....
Admission of cheque execution raises presumptions under NI Act Sections 118(a) & 139 of consideration and liability discharge; accused must rebut with evidence. Revisional court under CrPC Section 39....
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 o....
Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a dishonoured cheque establishes a presumption of liability that the accused must rebut; mere denial is insufficient in the absence of evidence.
Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act arise on implicit admission of cheque issuance via cross-examination; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial; revisional jurisdiction limi....
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 liabili....
Admission of cheque issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if debt subsists; accused must lead evide....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
