HP High Court Upholds S.139 NI Act Conviction, Citing Limited Revisional Scope and Unrebutted Presumption of Liability - 2025-06-27

HP High Court Upholds Cheque Bounce Conviction, Reaffirms Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the conviction of an individual in a cheque dishonour case, emphasizing that a revisional court cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent defect or perversity in the findings of the lower courts. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed the revision petition filed by Vijay Kumar Verma against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

---

Case Background

The dispute originated from a complaint filed by Vidya Sagar Sharma , who alleged that he had advanced a friendly loan of ₹9.00 lakh to Vijay Kumar Verma in 2014 for upgrading the latter's jewellery shop. It was agreed that the amount would be returned with ₹1.00 lakh as interest. After an initial delay, Verma issued a post-dated cheque for ₹10.00 lakh dated April 13, 2016.

The cheque was dishonoured upon presentation due to "insufficient funds." Despite receiving a legal notice, Verma failed to make the payment, leading Sharma to file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Both the Trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge found Verma guilty, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and ordering him to pay ₹11,50,000 as compensation.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Verma , challenged the concurrent convictions, arguing that the lower courts had failed to appreciate critical discrepancies in the complainant's case. His counsel pointed out inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony regarding the mode of payment and argued that a loan of ₹9.00 lakh was improbable given their history of smaller transactions.

The defence also contended that the cheque was merely given as security for a "committee" (an informal savings group) run by the complainant and that, in fact, the complainant owed the petitioner money for jewellery purchased from his shop.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Rakesh Kainthla conducted a thorough review of the legal principles governing revisional jurisdiction and the presumptions under the NI Act.

1. On Revisional Jurisdiction: The Court heavily relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda , to reiterate that its revisional powers under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. are limited. The judgment underscored that this jurisdiction is meant to correct patent defects, errors of law, or perversity, not to re-evaluate evidence at length as an appellate court would. The Court noted:

"It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record."

2. On Presumption of Liability (Section 139 NI Act): The Court found that since the petitioner admitted his signature on the cheque, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was automatically triggered. This presumption dictates that the cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden then shifted to the accused to prove the contrary.

The judgment cited a catena of Supreme Court rulings, including Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian and Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh , to establish that:

"Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability... The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities."

The Court held that the petitioner's defence was not substantiated with credible evidence. His claims about the "committee" and outstanding jewellery payments were dismissed as unproven suggestions and mere denials in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which the Court clarified is not substantive evidence.

3. On Discrepancies and Incriminating Suggestions: The Court deemed the minor discrepancy in the complainant’s testimony about the number of loan instalments insufficient to rebut the strong statutory presumption. Furthermore, a suggestion made by the defence during cross-examination—that the cheque amount was to be adjusted against the cost of ornaments—was interpreted as an implicit admission of liability. Citing Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra , the Court observed that incriminating suggestions made by defence counsel can bind the accused.

Final Decision

Concluding that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption of liability and that the lower courts' findings were not perverse or legally erroneous, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. It affirmed the conviction and the sentence, including the compensation amount of ₹11,50,000, finding it just and reasonable given the litigation costs and the loss of interest over six years. The ruling serves as a strong reminder of the legal sanctity of cheques and the high evidentiary burden placed on the accused to disprove liability once a signature is admitted.