Presumption under NI Act s.139 requires accused to rebut via preponderance of probabilities with probable defence; mere denial or unlinked supply evidence insufficient; limited revision scope defers to lower courts absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as the accused) under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) against the judgment dated 31.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P., whereby the judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, HP, in Criminal case No.354/2020 were affirmed, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgments.

2. Brief facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the accused, who was a government approved licensed Forest Contractor, approached the complainant (respondent herein) to sell 440 quintals of Khair wood at the rate of Rs.2500/- per quintal including carriage and loading, but excluding unloading at industrial premises as costs of labour for unloading, which was to be paid by the complainant. The entire agreed forest produce was required to be supplied to the complainant upto 31.12.2019. The complainant agreed to the same and a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as advance was transferred to the account of the accused as full and final payment for the forest produce to be supplied to him. However, the accused had failed to supply even a single consignment of forest produce to the complainant. On the persistent demand of the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.253231, dated 11.06.2020, amounting to Rs.11,00,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch, Samoh, District Bilaspur, HP in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation of the said cheque, it was returned unpaid to the complainant with the remarks “funds insufficient’, vide memo dated 19.06.2020. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 14.07.2020 to the accused demanding the cheque amount, but the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) against the accused before the learned trial Court.

3. The learned trial Court, after having found sufficient material against the accused had, put notice of accusation to him vide order dated 27.03.2021 and on conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, HP, vide judgment dated 31.12.2024, dismissed the same and upheld the judgment/order of the learned trial Court.

4. The accused/petitioner, feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court, preferred the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the learned Courts below have not appreciated the law and wrongly relied upon untrustworthy evidence led by the respondent/complainant. He further contended that there was no legal liability to be discharged in favour of the complainant by the petitioner as the petitioner had simply provided two loaded vehicles of wood to the complainant thr