Petitioner fails to rebut statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 in dishonoured cheque case

Delhi HC dismissed a revision petition challenging concurrent findings in a dishonour of cheque case. The petitioner claimed he issued blank signed cheques as security to a third party for a loan and had no transaction with the respondent. The court held that petitioner failed to rebut presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, providing no evidence to substantiate claims, failing to cross-examine the respondent, or summon witnesses. Mere bald assertions were insufficient to dislodge statutory presumptions regarding legally enforceable debt.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act and the burden of proof.
3. Evaluation of evidence and defense presented by the petitioner.
4. Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act:

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ). The conviction was based on the dishonor of cheques issued by the petitioner to the respondent, which were returned unpaid due to "funds insufficient." The petitioner admitted his signatures on the cheques, leading to a rebuttable presumption in favor of the respondent that the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

2. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act and the Burden of Proof:

Once the petitioner admitted to signing the cheques, the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act that the cheques were drawn for consideration, and under Section 139 that they were received in discharge of a debt, was activated. The petitioner was required to rebut these presumptions by presenting a probable defense. The court referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, which establishes that the burden shifts to the accused to disprove the existence of a debt or liability.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Defense Presented by the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that the cheques were given as blank signed security cheques to one Vinod Tiwari and not to the respondent. However, the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to support this claim, such as a complaint against Vinod Tiwari or any proof of repayment. The petitioner also did not cross-examine the respondent or bring any material evidence to suggest the absence of a loan transaction with the respondent. The courts noted that mere assertions without evidence do not suffice to rebut the presumptions under the NI Act.

4. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC:

The High Court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which is to assess the correctness, legality, and propriety of the impugned order without reappreciating evidence unless there is a glaring miscarriage of justice. The court cited precedents to highlight that revisional powers are supervisory and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, as the petitioner failed to present a probable defense or evidence to rebut the presumptions under the NI Act.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld. The court reiterated the importance of evidence in rebutting statutory presumptions and the limited role of revisional jurisdiction in such matters.

---