Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceable debt through cogent evidence, which cannot be discharged by mere bald assertions.

SUMEET GOEL, J.

The present revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsa whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the judgment dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

2. The facts, giving rise to the filing of the present criminal revision petition, in brief, are that the complainant - respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the petitioner-accused, was known to him and had approached him in the third week of December, 2015 seeking a friendly loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to meet the medical expenses relating to the delivery of his wife. It was alleged that on account of cordial relations between the parties, the complainant advanced the said amount to the accused. Thereafter, in the third week of January, 2016, the accused again approached the complainant and requested an additional amount of Rs.2,20,000/- on the ground that his newly born child requires medical treatment. As a result, the complainant lent another sum of Rs.2,20,000/- to the accused – petitioner. According to the complainant, in discharge of the aforesaid liability(s), the accused issued cheque bearing No.231216 dated 06.06.2016 for an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Sirsa Branch. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured vide return memo dated 07.06.2016 with the remarks “Funds insufficient”. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 24.06.2016 was issued to the accused-petitioner asking to repay the amount. Despite service of notice, the accused failed to make the payment which compelled the complainant to institute proceedings under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned trial Court.

2.1. The complainant examined himself as CW-1 and tendered documents in his preliminary evidence. Finding prima facie case in favour of complainant, the trial Court summoned the accused – petitioner to face trial, vide order dated 02.09.2016 and notice of accusation was served upon the accused – petitioner on 20.08.2019, to which he did not plead guilty.

2.2. The complainant examined Bank Manager as CW-1 to prove cheque return memo, Advocate Yogesh Garg as CW-2, who prove the legal notice sent to the accused – petitioner and complainant himself examined as CW-3 to prove his case.

2.3. The petitioner - accused in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. denied any friendly relation with the complainant. He stated that he had not filled the particulars of the cheque. He denied the receipt of legal notice. He stated that he used to work at the shop of the complainant.

2.4. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record of the case held that the postal receipts regarding issuance of legal notice to the petitioner - accused were duly proved. It is held that on behalf of the petitioner - accused, no suggestion was given to CW-2 Advocate who proved legal notice as well as to the complainant that no such notice was sent to the petitioner - accused. As such this plea of the accused – petitioner was discarded. It was held that since the petitioner - accused has not disputed his signature on cheque, therefore, presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments is attached to the