Admission of cheque signature raises presumption under NI Act ss.118(a),139 of debt discharge; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Revisional jurisdiction bars reappreciation absent perversity in concurrent findings.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 118(a), 139, 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Admission of signature triggers presumption of issuance for debt discharge; accused must rebut by evidence, mere statement under CrPC s.313 insufficient - Applies to security or blank signed cheque filled by payee if underlying liability exists; filling by other immaterial - All ingredients proved: issuance, dishonour for insufficient funds, notice service, payment failure. (Paras 19-39)

(B) CrPC - Section 397 - Revisional jurisdiction supervisory, limited to patent defects, jurisdictional errors, perversity; no reappreciation of evidence or substitution of view despite another possible - Concurrent findings not disturbed absent glaring miscarriage. (Paras 12-17)

(C) NI Act Section 138 - Demand notice deemed served if sent correctly (General Clauses Act s.27); denial rebuttable only by evidence - Limitation period excluded 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 per Supreme Court order. (Paras 36-38)

(D) Sentence - Simple imprisonment reasonable; compensation up to twice amount with interest reasonable; default imprisonment valid to enforce compensation under CrPC s.357(3). (Paras 40-46)

Facts of the case:
Complainant supplied boxes of apples worth net amount, accused sold, issued cheque dishonoured for insufficient funds, notice served, no repayment within 15 days, convicted, sentence upheld in appeal.

Findings of Court:
Presumption not rebutted, no perversity in concurrent findings, all ingredients satisfied, sentence not excessive.

Issues: Whether lower courts erred in holding presumption unrebutted despite security/blank cheque and prior payment claims; scope of revisional interference; notice validity, limitation, sentence propriety.

Ratio Decidendi: Upon signature admission, reverse onus shifts to accused for rebuttal; security/blank cheques liable if debt subsists; revisional court refrains from reanalysing evidence without perversity. Result : Revision dismissed.

Table of Content
1. cheque issued for apple sale proceeds, dishonoured for insufficient funds (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. lower courts upheld conviction; presumption not rebutted (Para 6 , 7)
3. accused claims security cheque misused, prior payment made (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. revisional court limits interference absent perversity or jurisdictional error (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. section 138 requires drawing, dishonour, notice, non-payment (Para 18)
6. signature admission triggers sections 118/139 presumption of debt (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. bill proves debt; section 313 statement not defence evidence (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. security cheques attract section 138 liability if debt subsists (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. payee filling signed blank cheque does not absolve drawer (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
10. dishonour and notice service duly proved and presumed (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
11. covid orders extend section 138 complaint limitation period (Para 38)
12. all section 138 ingredients satisfied; conviction proper (Para 39)
13. sentence, compensation, default imprisonment legally sound (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
14. revision dismissed; no other grounds urged (Para 47 , 48)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla, H.P. Camp at Rohru, (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 25.6.2012 and order of sentence dated 27.7.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class- II, Rohru, 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 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 is a proprietor of Ronak Orchards, Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. He had supplied 70 boxes of apples to the accused on 8.8.2010. The accused sold those boxes for Rs.25,390/- after deducting the expenses for freight and storage. The complainant asked the accused to settle the account and pay the money to him. The accused issued a cheque of Rs.25,390/- to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque to State Bank of India, Rohru, for its realisation, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused on 3.11.2011, asking him to repay the amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. The accused failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused as per 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 read with Section 142 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself (CW1), Swaran Singh (CW2) and Arjun Nahar (CW3) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, admitted that he had sold the complainant’s apples and that he had a running account with the complainant. He stated that he had made the payment to the complainant. The cheque was issued in advance. He had cordial relations with the complainant, but his luck was not favouring him. He denied that he had received any notice. He did not produce any defence evidence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted issuance of the cheque and his signature, which would trigger the presumption under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the NI Act. The accused failed to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement