Signature admission on cheque triggers Sections 118(a),139 NI Act presumption of debt discharge; accused must rebut by evidence, mere denial insufficient; revisional jurisdiction limited, no interference with concurrent findings absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 26.04.2024 and order of sentence dated 27.04.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur (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 body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its head office at plot No.4, Dwarka, Sector 10, New Delhi-110075. It has various branches, and one such branch is located at Bhota. The complainant is engaged in banking activities. The accused raised a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and executed the necessary documents in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. He issued a cheque of Rs.5,13,387/- in favour of the complainant to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque, but it was dishonoured with the endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused on 13.10.2022, asking him to repay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. However, 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 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 Tanuj Rathore (CW-1) to prove its complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted his signature on the cheque. He claimed that he had an account with the bank and the cheques were lying with the bank. He was not liable to pay any amount. The cheque was misused, and the cheque is not in his handwriting. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted his signature on the cheque. There is a presumption that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused denied that he had taken the loan, but it was proved by the documents that the loan was advanced to hi