Computer-generated cheque return memo without bank seal or signatures fails to attract presumption of dishonour; prosecution must prove insufficient funds via proper evidence from relevant bank.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.3.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, H.P., (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.9.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ani, District Kullu, HP (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 petition 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 complainant and the accused were known to each other. The accused borrowed Rs. 5.00 lacs from the complainant on 25.8.2016. He issued a cheque of Rs. 5.00 lacs drawn on ICICI Bank, Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, HP, to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused on 21.10.2017 asking him to repay the amount, but he failed to do so. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused 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 Rakesh Kumar (CW1), himself (CW2) and Neena Verma (CW3) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. He examined himself (DW1) and Sher Singh (DW2) to prove his defence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted his signature on the cheque. Thus, a presumption would arise that the cheque was issued by the accused to discharge the debt/ liability. The burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused failed to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The accused failed to repay the amount despite the service of the notice. 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 one year and pay compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the admission of the signatures on the cheque would trigger the presumption that it was issued to discharge the debt/liability. The accused claimed that he had issued the cheque to Tars