Dishonoured cheque conviction upheld as accused fails to rebut statutory presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act

The Gujarat HC dismissed a revision application in a dishonoured cheque case. The accused issued a cheque that was returned for insufficient funds. Despite receiving statutory notice via RPAD, the accused failed to respond or provide adequate defense. The HC found the accused's documentary evidence insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act. With no evidence of cheque misuse or loss, and concurrent findings from two lower courts confirming conviction, the HC upheld the conviction, noting that revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation of evidence when lower courts have made concurrent factual findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Appeal and revision against the conviction.
3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Rebuttal of presumption by the accused.
5. Statutory notice and procedural compliance.
6. Revisional jurisdiction and scope of interference by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner, the original accused, was convicted by the Trial Court for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which pertains to the dishonor of a cheque due to insufficient funds. The Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to 15 months of simple imprisonment and directed him to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.

2. Appeal and Revision Against the Conviction:
The petitioner appealed the Trial Court's decision to the Sessions Court, which upheld the conviction and directed the petitioner to surrender within 15 days. The petitioner then filed a revision application before the High Court. The High Court initially stayed the execution of the impugned judgment on the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the cheque amount, which he complied with by depositing Rs. 1,75,000.

3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The Trial Court and the Sessions Court both relied on the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 118(a) presumes that every negotiable instrument was made for consideration, and Section 139 presumes that the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability unless proven otherwise.

4. Rebuttal of Presumption by the Accused:
The petitioner argued that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt, citing a previous civil suit involving the complainant's wife, which was dismissed. However, the courts found that the petitioner failed to provide cogent and reliable evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions. The accused did not step into the witness box or adduce any oral evidence but relied on documentary evidence, which the courts found insufficient.

5. Statutory Notice and Procedural Compliance:
The complainant had issued a statutory notice to the petitioner, which was served as per the acknowledgment slip. The petitioner did not reply to the notice, leading the courts to believe that he had no defense and was merely trying to delay the proceedings.

6. Revisional Jurisdiction and Scope of Interference by the High Court:
The High Court emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of the entire evidence when there are concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts. The High Court found no absolute illegality or irregularity in the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the revision application.

Further Order:
The High Court allowed the petitioner time to surrender within four weeks, provided he deposits the balance cheque amount within 10 days. If the amount is not deposited, the Trial Court was directed to execute the impugned judgment immediately.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and dismissed the revision application, emphasizing the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction.

---