Accused fails to rebut Section 139 presumption claiming blank cheque given as security for loan

The Punjab & Haryana HC set aside the acquittal of the accused in a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 by merely claiming he gave a blank cheque as security for a loan. The accused admitted his signature on the cheque throughout the trial but never confronted the complainant with his defense during cross-examination. The court restored the trial court's conviction and sentence, directing the accused to surrender within 15 days.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Justifiability of the condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the accused.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Acquittal:
The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 26.02.2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which acquitted the respondent from charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, reversing the trial court's conviction. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 1,75,000/- which was dishonored due to "drawer's signature incomplete." Despite receiving a legal notice, the accused failed to make payment, leading to the filing of the complaint. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court acquitted him, stating that the complainant failed to prove the existence of liability and other defenses raised by the accused.

2. Justifiability of the Condonation of Delay:
The appellate court admitted the appeal without passing any order on the application for condonation of delay and released the accused on bail. The complainant argued that no opportunity was provided to contest the application for condonation of delay, and the appellate court's decision to condone the delay was unjustified.

Detailed Judgment:

Condonation of Delay:
The court found that the accused's claim that his previous counsel did not inform him about the decision was unsustainable. The accused's conduct, including absconding and failing to file the appeal within the allowed time, did not justify the delay. Hence, the order of the appellate court allowing the application for condonation of delay was reversed.

Merits of the Case:
The trial court's record showed that the cheque was issued by the accused and was dishonored due to incomplete signature. The accused admitted to issuing the cheque but claimed it was a security cheque for a loan of Rs. 55,000/-. The court observed that once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act applies, which the accused failed to rebut effectively. The appellate court's reasoning, including the claim of money lending business and material alteration of the cheque, was found to be irrelevant and based on conjectures.

Restoration of Conviction and Sentence:
The court set aside the appellate court's judgment of acquittal and restored the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence. The accused was directed to surrender within 15 days, failing which coercive steps would be taken to enforce the sentence.

Conclusion:
The impugned judgment of acquittal was set aside, and the trial court's judgment convicting and sentencing the accused was restored. The accused was directed to surrender to the trial court within 15 days.

---