Admission of cheque signatures triggers presumption of debt under NI Act ss.118/139, rebuttable only by accused evidence; security cheques attract s.138 liability if debt subsists; revisional jurisdiction limited, no interference absent perversity in concurrent findings.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 30.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P. (learned trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred 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 before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for short “NI Act”). It was asserted that the complainant is a partnership firm, which is duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. The Firm deals in agricultural and horticultural products. The accused purchased vegetable seeds worth Rs. 2,95,000/-. He paid Rs. 80,000/- in cash and issued two post-dated cheques for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,15,0000/-respectively towards the repayment of the amount. The complainant presented the cheques to the bank, but these were dishonoured with an endorsement “funds Insufficient”. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused, but the accused refused to receive it. He did not make any payment to the complainant; hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court to take action against the accused, 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 N.I. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The complainant examined Sh. Sandeep Dharma (CW-1) to prove its case.

5.The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, admitted that he had purchased the seeds worth Rs. 2,95,000/- from the complainant. He stated that he had paid the money in cash. He claimed that he had issued the cheques as security. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence.

6.The learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted his signature on the cheques, and a presumption under section 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act would be triggered that the cheques were issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused claimed that he had repaid the amount; however, he did not produce any evidence to prove the payment. The cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Notice was duly served upon the accused, and he failed to repay the amount; hence, the learned trial Court convicted the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/- to the complainant.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accus