Revision petition dismissed in dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 NI Act for failing to rebut presumption

Kerala HC dismissed revision petition in dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 NI Act. Petitioner failed to rebut presumption under Section 139 by not adducing cogent evidence to disprove documentary entry. Court held materials from complainant's side insufficient to create doubt about legally enforceable debt. Appellate court's conviction upheld with imprisonment till rising of court, fine of Rs. 4 lakh, and compensation direction under Section 357(1) CrPC. Petitioner directed to surrender before trial court by specified date.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Validity of the cheque and presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act.
3. Procedural fairness under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

Summary:

1. Legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The accused (revision petitioner) was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I Act by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothamangalam, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam. The case involved a cheque issued by the accused for Rs. 4 lakh, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court sentenced the accused to six months of simple imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. 4 lakh with interest. The appellate court reduced the imprisonment to one day till rising of the court but maintained the fine amount.

2. Validity of the cheque and presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act:
The accused claimed that the cheque was issued as a blank security cheque for a vehicle loan and was misused by the complainant. However, the court found no evidence to support this claim. The Bank statement (Ext.P6) confirmed the payment of Rs. 4 lakh to the accused, substantiating the complainant's case. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, stating that a signed blank cheque given voluntarily can be filled by the payee, and the onus to rebut the presumption under Section 139 lies on the accused. The accused failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut this presumption.

3. Procedural fairness under Section 313 of Cr.P.C:
The accused argued that the trial was vitiated due to the Magistrate's failure to put all incriminating circumstances to him during the 313 examination. The court held that the mode of payment (cash or cash cheque) was not an incriminating circumstance that needed to be put to the accused during the 313 examination. The court emphasized that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act stood unrebutted as the accused did not provide sufficient evidence to disprove the transaction.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the appellate court's judgment. The revision petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court to receive the sentence and pay the fine amount by 28.11.2023. The Registry was instructed to transmit the case records to the trial court for execution of the sentence.

---