Accused fails to rebut statutory presumption in dishonoured cheque case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act

The HC upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139, as cross-examination did not contradict the complainant's testimony. Despite the accused's claim of prior payment of Rs.8,00,000/- against Rs.2,00,000/-, the receipt produced lacked mention of the dishonoured cheque. The court held that even cheques issued as security can be presented for encashment if promised repayment fails. All essential ingredients of Section 138 were satisfied, and the revision petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Evaluation of evidence and presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Jurisdiction and scope of revisional powers under Section 397 of the CrPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate court. The trial court had found the petitioner guilty of issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds, thus constituting an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner argued that the cheque was issued as a security and not for the discharge of any debt. However, the courts below held that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of a lawful liability, and the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The High Court upheld these findings, emphasizing that the petitioner admitted to issuing the cheque and did not sufficiently contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

2. Evaluation of evidence and presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The courts relied on the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, which assume that the cheque was issued for consideration and towards a debt unless proven otherwise by the accused. The petitioner attempted to challenge this by claiming to have repaid the debt and by presenting a receipt (Mark-DX1) as evidence. However, the receipt did not conclusively prove repayment, and the forensic examination of the receipt's signatures was inconclusive. The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide positive evidence to rebut the presumption, and the complainant's evidence was consistent and credible, thereby supporting the conviction.

3. Jurisdiction and scope of revisional powers under Section 397 of the CrPC:
The High Court emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC, which is primarily supervisory and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. The court can only interfere in cases of miscarriage of justice or procedural irregularities. In this case, the High Court found no such errors in the judgments of the lower courts. The evidence had been thoroughly evaluated, and the findings were based on a proper appreciation of the facts and the law. Therefore, the High Court saw no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was directed to surrender to serve the sentence, and the bail bonds were canceled. The court found the judgments of the lower courts to be well-reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and legal principles.

---