Once a cheque's issuance and signature are admitted, Section 139 of the NI Act creates a rebuttable presumption of a legally enforceable debt. Signatories acting for a cooperative society are vicariously liable under Section 141, and revisional courts should not interfere with concurrent findings unless showing patent perversity.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.2.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una-I, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), which upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court). (The 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 petition are that the complainant presented a complaint against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant had an account in the Ispur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society. He used to deposit and withdraw the money from time to time as per his needs. He approached the accused, who was the Secretary of the society, to give him ₹5,00,000/- for meeting his domestic needs. The accused issued a cheque of ₹5,00,000/- on 23.4.2020. He requested the complainant to deposit the amount in the last week of May 2020 because the society was facing financial difficulties. The complainant presented the cheque to his banker on 26.5.2020, but it was dishonoured with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant sent a notice to the accused asking them to pay the amount. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but they failed to pay the amount. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court to take action against the accused as per the law.

The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, notice of accusation was put to them for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The complainant examined himself (CW1), Ranjot Singh (CW2) and Pradeep Kumar (CW3).

The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), admitted that he was posted as a Secretary and accused No.3, Sudershan, was posted as a Cashier of the society. He admitted that the complainant had an account with the society, and he used to deposit and withdraw the amount as per his needs. He admitted that the cheque (Ex.C1) bears his signature. He claimed that the complainant had told him that he (complainant) required a blank cheque to purchase land in Punjab, and he had issued a blank signed cheque to the complainant. He did not produce any evidence despite repeated opportunities.

The learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed. The accused had also not disputed the fact that the complainant had an account with the society in which he used to deposit money. The claim made by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that the blank cheque was issued at the request of the complainant was improbable. A cheque carried with it a presumption, and the accused had failed to rebut the presumption. 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 one year and pay a compensation of ₹6,10,000/-.

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-I, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court held that the accused had not disputed the issuance of the cheque. The cheque was drawn on the account of the society, which was arrayed as accused No.2 through his President. The accused was arrayed as the person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. He was an authorised signatory and was liable by vir