The burden of proof in dishonor of cheque cases under Section 138 shifts to the complainant once a reasonable doubt is created about the transaction's authenticity.

Prashar Enterprises ...Petitioner Versus o Prakash Chand & Anr. ..Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the PetitioneCr : Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.2-State : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge H The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 03.07.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 02.01.2024 and order of sentence dated 06.01.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. (3), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise toH the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before 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 and the accused were friends and they had very good relations with each other. In January 2012, the accused informed the complainant that he required financial assistance to repay the loan insta lment for the truck he owned. The bank was threatening to attach the vehicle for sale. Hence, the complainant advanced a sum of ₹5,20,000/- to the accused. The accused issued a cheque of ₹20,000/- and a cheque of ₹5,00,000/- to the complainant to repay the amount. The complainant presented the cheques to his bank for realisation of the amount, but they were dishonoured with the remarks “funds insufÏcient”. The complainant issued a notice to the accused asking him to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to repay any money despite the receipt of the notice of demand. Hence, a complaint was filed to take action as per the law.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufÏcieHnt 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 himself (CW1) in support of his complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Chr.P.C., denied the case of the complainant and asserted thagt the complainant had given two cheques of ₹90,000/- to ihim and obtained 05 blank cheques from him. He has already paid ₹3,50,000/- inclusive of interest to the complainant. Initially, the complainant presented a cheque of ₹2,30,000/- and filed a complaint. The case was decided in his (accused) favour. The complainant presented another cheque. He tendered the documents in his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque and there is a presumption that the cheque was issued for consideration in discharge of the legal liability. The burden shifted upon the accused to rebut this presumption. The documents placed on record by the accused were not sufÏcient to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with endorsement “insufÏcient funds”. The notice was served upon the accused. He had failed to repay the money despite the receipt of legal notice of demand. Hence, the accused was convicted for the coummission of an offence punishable under Section 138 ofo the NI Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisoCnment for 07 months and pay a fine of ₹9,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 25 days.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi (learned Ap