The admission of signatures on a cheque invokes a presumption of consideration and discharge of debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the burden of proof shifts to the accused to establish a probable defense to rebut the presumption.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 10.10.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sunam was upheld.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has admitted his signatures on the cheque, but the manner in which the signatures were obtained was fraudulent and due to threat, as the compromise was effected in the Police Station. The signatures on the cheque were obtained under pressure in connivance with DSP, Sunam. Petitioner had to issue the cheque under the police pressure and his signatures were also obtained on blank stamp papers whereupon the compromise was recorded on 08.10.2010 and cheque was issued on 08.04.2011.

3. Evidently, the petitioner had ample time in the interregnum to raise his grounds before the higher authority of police in respect of highhandedness of the DSP, Sunam and the complainant. Petitioner remained silent for six months and did not file any complaint or representation before any authority.

4. Virtually, the petitioner has admitted his signatures on the cheque and the same has invited a presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued and drawn for consideration on the date appearing on the cheque. Once the signature on the cheque is admitted, he cannot escape his liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Reliance can be placed on Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 306 and Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2019(2) Civil Court Cases 001 (Supreme Court).

5. In view of aforesaid precedents, it can be inferred that by virtue of admission qua signature on the cheque, it has to be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheque received the same in discharge of an existing debt. In such an eventuality, the onus shifts upon the accused to establish a probable defence so as to rebut the presumption. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to rebut the aforesaid presumption. It can also be seen that when presumption is drawn, then result of such presumption would show that there is an existence of legally enforceable debt and factors relating to want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence and source of funds are not relevant considerations while examining the fact that whether the accused has rebutted the presumption or not.

6. Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act enjoins the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for discharge of legally enforceable debt. Such a presumption though is rebuttable in nature, but the petitioner has not led any evidence to rebut the presumption except to allege that his signatures were obtained under pressure in connivance with DSP, Sunam.

7. Even as per documentary evidence of the petitioner himself i.e. DW3/A, the same would show that the petitioner had sought information under RTI Act from the Income Tax Department. When the petitioner had ample time to approach the other authorities in respect of evasion of income tax by the complainant, then certainly he had ample opportunity to expose highhandedness of the police authorities in hierarchy. Even if, the complainant has not shown an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- in his income tax return, the same at the most, can be a violation under the Income Tax Act and may or may not attract any penalty, but in any case, non-mentioning of the amount in the income tax return would not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner.

8. In the statement recorded by the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has taken the plea of forgery and fabrication of the cheque in respect of obtaining his signature by force and signing of the blank stamp papers in connivance of the police with th