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 evidence to rebut, beyond Section 313 statement; revisional jurisdiction narrow.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 1.7.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, 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 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 complainant is a book seller, running a shop in the name and style of Ashoka Book Depot at Rampur. The accused is running a shop in the name and style of Jai Bharat Lab, Rampur. The accused used to borrow the money from the complainant and return it within time. The complainant supplied a large number of photo frames, files and CD Covers to the accused, and an amount of Rs.2,94,000/- was due towards the complainant. The accused executed an agreement on 9.5.2016, undertaking to pay the outstanding amount on or before July 2016. The accused issued a cheque of Rs.90,000/- payable in the State Bank of India to pay the money. The complainant presented the cheque before the Bank, but it was returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused demanding the money, but the accused failed to pay the money despite the receipt of the notice. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per the 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 himself (CW-1) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., asserted that the complainant was engaged in the lottery business. The accused was a member of this business. He had issued a cheque to the complainant as security for the monthly payment. The accused regularly paid money to the complainant, but the complainant refused to acknowledge the payment made by the accused and misused the security cheque issued by the accused. He initially stated that he wanted to lead the defence evidence, but did not produce any evidence subsequently.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the issuance of the cheque. He claimed that the cheque was issued as security for a lottery business. The cheque issued as a security will also attract the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. The admission of the signatures and the issuance of the cheque would trigger the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act that it was issue