In revisional jurisdiction, courts cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings unless there is a patent error or perversity. A cheque issued as security for a matured loan liability is actionable under Section 138 if dishonoured, with the burden of rebutting statutory presumptions lying on the accused.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, 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 complainant is a banking company engaged in various banking activities. The accused borrowed the loan from the complainant and executed various documents in its favour. He issued a cheque of ₹ 70,000 as part payment of the debt. The complainant deposited the cheque in its 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 Vijay Walia (CW1) to prove its 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. The present complaint was filed against him to compel him to pay the whole amount to the complainant. He claimed that he was innocent. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

Learned Trial Court held that the complainant’s version that the accused had issued a cheque of ₹ 70,000 in its 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 an 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 and pay a compensation of ₹1,40,000/-.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra (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 its 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 accused. The sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court was adequate, and no interference was required with it. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Cou