A signed blank cheque voluntarily handed over to a payee attracts the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; the burden of proof lies on the accused to rebut this presumption with evidence.

Whether the pronouncement is of the : No.

operative part of the judgment ?

Whether the full judgment has been : Yes

pronounced?

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)

Heard Mr. K Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Singha, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This revision petition is directed against the appellate Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2015, in Criminal Appeal No. 07(K-A)/14, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revisionist against the Judgment & Order dated 08.07.2013 in CR No. 8430/07, passed by the learned Trial Court, convicting the appellant in a complaint case instituted under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as the ‘N.I Act’) and sentencing the accused/revisionist to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and also to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357 CrPC.

3. The said appeal was dismissed by the aforesaid impugned order. However, the sentence was modified by substituting the sentence imposed by the the learned Trial Court with a sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent/complainant had given a loan of Rs. 85,000/- to the appellant and by way of return of the said loan, the appellant had issued the cheque bearing No. 014658 dated 09/08/2007 for an amount of Rs. 85,000/- drawn on the Central bank of India, Bijoynagar branch. The cheque was deposited on two occasions, the latter date being 06/11/2007, but the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. A notice was sent on 08/11/2007, and since payment was not made within the stipulated period, the complaint case was filed under Section 138 N.I Act.

5. In the trial, the respondent/complainant examined two witnesses and exhibited some documents. The defence did not adduce any evidence. After completion of trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved by such conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed a criminal appeal before the appellate Court. Subsequently, the said appeal also came to be dismissed; however, the sentence was modified as stated hereinabove.

6. I have heard Mr. K Bhyuan, counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B Singha, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

7. The main contention put forward by learned counsel for the appellant was that this is a case where, admittedly, the revisionist had issued a blank cheque, and although he had only taken a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant/society, subsequently, the cheque was filled up with an inflated amount of Rs. 85,000/- and presented to the bank for encashment.

8. In this regard, learned counsel for the revisionist has taken the Court through the cross-examination of the PW1/complainant, wherein it is stated in the second last paragraph that at the time of availing the loan, the accused had issued a blank cheque in the name of the Samiti. This has been pointed out by learned counsel to buttress the contention that it was a blank cheque, which was issued by the petitioner/revisionist.

9. The said paragraph may be reflected herein below.

"It is not a fact that the accused availed a loan of Rs. 10,000/- only from the complainant Samiti. At the time of availing the