Once a cheque's issuance and signature are admitted, a rebuttable presumption of legal liability arises under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The burden rests on the accused to rebut this through evidence, not mere denial; revisional courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent manifest perversity.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. (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.)

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, 1881 (in short, 'NI Act'). It was asserted that the parties were well known to each other. The accused approached the complainant in October, 2018 and asked for ₹ 85,000 to meet his domestic needs. The accused accepted the complainant’s request and paid him an amount of ₹ 85,000. The accused issued a cheque for ₹ 85,000 on 25th February 2019 to discharge his legal liability. The complainant deposited the cheque in his bank, and it was dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficient funds'. The complainant issued a demand notice to the accused asking him to pay the amount within 15 days. Notice was served upon the accused, but he failed to pay the money. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court against the accused for taking action as per law.

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.

The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his complaint.

The accused, in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. He stated that he had not issued any cheque, and the cheque did not bear his signature. He denied the receipt of any notice of demand. He claimed that a false complaint was made against him. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

Learned Trial Court held that the complainant’s version that the accused had issued a cheque of ₹85,000/- in his favour was proved. The cheque carries with it a presumption that it was issued for consideration in discharge of debt/liability. The accused failed to produce any evidence to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with endorsement “insufficient funds”, and the notice was duly served upon the accused. All the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act were duly satisfied. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months pay a compensation of ₹1,30,000/- and in default of payment of compensation to undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the complainant’s version that the accused had issued a cheque in his favour was duly proved, and a presumption arose that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The accused did not produce any evidence to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. Notice was duly served upon the accused, and he failed to repay the amount despite receipt of a valid notice of demand. The learned Trial Court had rightly convicted the acc