The dishonour of a cheque due to a differing signature in accordance with Section 138 of the NI Act constitutes an offense, with the burden on the accused to rebut presumptions of liability.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J. …................................... Crl.R.P.No.1211 of 2017 …......................................................... Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2025 ORDER Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' for short).

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in CC No.2146 of

2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (NI Act cases), Kozhikode.

3. The case of the complainant is that the accused issued Ext.P5 cheque dated 13.08.2014 for Rs.81,000/- drawn on his account with the Federal Bank, Kuttiady branch, towards the repayment of the loan availed by him from the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection, it got dishonoured due to the reason that 'drawers signature differs'. Even though, the complainant issued a registered lawyer's notice to the accused intimating the dishonour and demanding the amount covered by the cheque, it did not evoke any response. Hence, the complainant approached the trial court by filing the afore complaint.

4. In the trial court, from the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined, and Exts. P1 to P11 documents were marked. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. Even though, an opportunity was granted, no evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 138 of the NI Act. It sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.81,000/- under Section

138 of the NI Act, with a default clause.

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.App.No.71 of 2017 before the Special Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. The said court by judgment dated

24.04.2017 dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard Sri. Shyam Kumar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There is no representation for the 1^st respondent.

Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner assailed the impugned judgments by contending that both the trial court and the appellate court have failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective. He argued that the signed blank cheque which has been given as security to the agent of the complainant has been misused in this case and that the complainant has not proved the execution of the cheque.

8. The materials on record show that the complainant in order to prove its case, has examined PW1, its Managing Partner and has marked Exts.P1 to P11 documents. PW1 has filed a proof affidavit in tune with the averments in the complaint. He stated that the accused had availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- on 30.05.2013 for a period of two years and the amount was paid to the accused as per an account payee cheque. At that time, the accused and his wife, who stood as surety, executed Ext.P4 agreement agreeing to repay the amount in 24 installments. After paying three installments, the accused committed default and on repeated demands, the accused came to the office of the complainant and executed and issued Ext.P5 cheque for Rs.81,000/-. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it got dishonoured stating that the 'drawers signature differs'. The statutory notice issued to the accused also did not evoke any response. PW1 further stated that the ledger account maintained by the complainant in respect of the loan transaction with the accused is Ext.P10 and that the accused has come to the office and has signed the cheque in front of him and handed i