Successive Presentation of Cheque & Fresh Notice Permissible Under S.138 NI Act; Accused's Failure to Rebut Presumption Upholds Conviction: Himachal Pradesh High Court

HP High Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Reaffirms Key Principles of NI Act

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh – The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the conviction of an individual in a cheque dishonour case, reinforcing several critical legal principles under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Justice Rakesh Kainthla , while dismissing the criminal revision petition, clarified that a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is maintainable even after successive presentations of a cheque and that the onus to disprove a legally enforceable debt lies squarely on the accused once the signature on the cheque is admitted.

---

Background of the Case

The case, Ravinder Kumar vs Sushil Junk Scrap Dealer & ors. , originated from a business dispute. The complainant, a junk dealer, alleged that the petitioner, Ravinder Kumar , owed him ₹28,400 from their business dealings. To partially discharge this liability, Kumar issued a cheque for ₹15,000 in September 2007.

The cheque was first dishonoured with the remark "payment stopped by the drawer." The complainant claimed that upon being contacted, the accused requested him to present the cheque again. On its second presentation, it was dishonoured for "insufficient funds." Subsequently, the complainant issued a legal notice, and upon non-payment, initiated criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Both the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions Judge found Kumar guilty, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and ordering him to pay ₹30,000 in compensation. Aggrieved, Kumar filed the present revision petition before the High Court.

---

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel primarily argued that:

1. The cause of action was complete upon the first dishonour and issuance of notice, making the subsequent complaint based on a re-presented cheque invalid and time-barred.

2. The accused had only issued a blank signed cheque as security, which the complainant misused.

3. The complainant failed to produce account books to prove the underlying debt.

4. The sentence of six months' imprisonment was excessive for a cheque amount of ₹15,000.

---

High Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Rakesh Kainthla meticulously addressed each of the petitioner's contentions, relying on established Supreme Court precedents.

On Successive Presentation of a Cheque

The Court firmly rejected the argument that a complaint is barred after the first dishonour. Citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan (2013) , the bench held:

"There is nothing in the NI Act to prevent the repeated presentation of the cheque or issuance of successive notices... a prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheque is also permissible so long as the same satisfies the requirements stipulated in the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act."

The Court concluded that there is no bar on the successive presentation of a cheque and the filing of a complaint based on the subsequent dishonour.

On Presumption of Liability (Section 139 & 118)

The judgment heavily emphasized the "reverse onus" clause in the NI Act. Once the accused admits his signature on the cheque, a statutory presumption arises under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption. The Court observed:

"The accused has to lead defence evidence to rebut the presumption and mere denial in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not sufÏcient to rebut the presumption."

The petitioner’s failure to step into the witness box or provide any concrete evidence to support his claim that the cheque was merely for "security" proved fatal to his defence. The Court also cited Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) , noting that even a blank signed cheque voluntarily handed over attracts the presumption under Section 139.

On Dishonour due to 'Stop Payment'

The Court clarified that dishonour of a cheque due to "stop payment" instructions is also an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, as it cannot be used as a loophole to escape liability. Citing Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) , the court reiterated that the accused cannot escape liability on this ground.

---

Final Decision and Implications

Finding no perversity or legal error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. It upheld both the conviction and the sentence, including the six-month imprisonment and the ₹30,000 compensation, deeming them appropriate given the deterrent object of the NI Act and the long delay in litigation.

The Court also affirmed the legality of imposing a default sentence for non-payment of compensation, stating it is crucial for ensuring the effectiveness of the relief granted to the complainant.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder of the stringent nature of the NI Act and reinforces the legal position on the presumptions of liability, the validity of successively presented cheques, and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction in such matters.