Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act are triggered upon proof of a cheque's issuance. Violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act does not invalidate the legally enforceable debt, and "stop payment" instructions constitute dishonour punishable under Section 138.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2022 and order of sentence dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Sundernagar, District Mandi (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rHise to the present petition 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 (NI Act). It was asserted that the accused had issued a cheque of ₹2,26,000/- to the complainant for lawful consideration. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank for collection. However, the bank returned the cheque with an endo rsement “payment stopped by the drawer”. The complainant issued a legal notice asking the accused to pay the amount. This notice was received by the accused on 03.10.2018. The accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of the notice. Hence, a complaint was filed before the Court for taking action against the accused as per the law.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufÏcient 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 himsHelf (CW1) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his stateoment recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal P rocedure (Cr.P.C), denied the complainant’s case in itsr entirety. He stated that he had not issued any cheque to the complainant, and he had not received any notice from the complainant. He had dealings with some other person and had no concern with the complainant. He examined himself (DW1) and Gulab Singh (DW2).

6. The learned Trial Court held that a cheque carries iwith it a presumption that it was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The burden was upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The evidence of the accused was not sufÏcient to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer”. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to pay the due amount. 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 rigorous imprisonment for three months, pay a fine of ₹2,26,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. The amount of fine was ordered to be released to the complainant as compensation.

7. 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, Sundernagar, District Mandi (learned Appellate Court). The Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that a ch eque carried with it a presumption of consideration and that it was issued to discharge the debt/liability. The evidence led by the accused was not sufÏcient to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “payment sto