Accused fails to rebut statutory presumption, conviction upheld for dishonoured cheque under Section 138

The HP HC dismissed a revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused had issued a cheque for Rs. 3 lakh loan repayment which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, claiming repayment without satisfactory proof. The court held all ingredients of Section 138 were satisfied - cheque issued for legal liability, dishonour due to insufficient funds, and failure to repay despite valid notice. The three-month imprisonment sentence was deemed appropriate for its deterrent effect.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include: (1) Whether the issuance of the cheques by the accused was in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act); (2) Whether the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act regarding the validity of the cheque and consideration was rightly applied and rebutted; (3) Whether the accused successfully established a probable defence to rebut the statutory presumption; (4) Whether the dishonour of the cheques was properly proved; (5) Whether the accused received the legal notice and failed to make payment; (6) Whether the complainant was a moneylender and if that affected the validity of the complaint; (7) The implications of non-compliance with Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act and non-production of income tax returns by the complainant on the validity of the complaint; (8) Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in their appreciation of evidence and legal principles; and (9) The appropriateness of the sentence and compensation awarded under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Regarding the issuance of cheques and legal liability, the courts below found that the accused admitted issuing at least one cheque and borrowing Rs.3,00,000 from the complainant. The accused denied borrowing Rs.1,50,000 and issuing the corresponding cheque but did not deny the issuance of the second cheque. The courts applied the statutory presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act, which presume that a negotiable instrument is issued for consideration and that a cheque is received for discharge of debt or liability unless rebutted. The accused bore the burden to rebut this presumption.

The accused's defence rested on the claim that the cheques were given as security and that the Rs.3,00,000 loan had been repaid by cheque, including an additional Rs.50,000. He produced a defence witness who tendered a statement of account indicating a payment of Rs.3,00,000 to a person named Surender Kumar. However, the witness could not establish the identity of Surender Kumar as the complainant, and the accused did not requisition vouchers to clarify this. The complainant denied receiving such repayment. The courts found this evidence insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of consideration and liability.

The dishonour of the cheques was established through bank memos bearing the endorsement 'funds insufficient.' The courts relied on the principle that such bank memos are presumed correct under Section 146 of the Evidence Act and Section 147 of the NI Act, and the accused failed to disprove dishonour. The accused admitted receipt of the legal notice demanding payment, but no payment was made, satisfying the requirements of Section 138.

The accused's contention that the complainant was a moneylender and thus the complaint was invalid was rejected. The complainant denied being a moneylender, and mere denial was held insufficient to prove the accused's claim. The courts examined the definition of moneylender under the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976, which requires carrying on the business of advancing loans at interest. The complainant's cases related to earnest money and not advancing money at interest, and thus the plea failed.

Regarding the alleged violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act (which regulates cash transactions exceeding Rs.20,000), the courts held that such violation attracts penalty but does not invalidate the transaction. The complainant's failure to produce income tax returns or disclose the loan in returns was held irrelevant to the validity of the complaint under Section 138. The courts relied on precedent that Section 269SS violations do not render transactions void or unenforceable.

The accused also argued that the cheques were presented before the due date and without proper notice, and that the agreement between the parties was not produced, warranting adverse inference. The courts held that the presumption of consideration under Sections 118(a) and 139 applies irrespective of production of the agreement, and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the accused. The complainant is not required to prove consideration in such proceedings. The failure to produce the agreement was not fatal to the complainant's case.

The courts extensively reviewed the legal framework and precedents concerning Section 138 of the NI Act and the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139. The judgment relied on authoritative Supreme Court decisions that establish: (i) the presumption that a cheque is issued for discharge of debt once the signature and issuance are admitted; (ii) the accused must raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption; (iii) the standard of proof for rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt; (iv) mere denial without evidence is insufficient; (v) the dishonour memo from the bank is presumed correct unless disproved; and (vi) the complainant need not prove financial capacity unless specifically challenged.

The courts rejected the accused's attempt to re-litigate factual disputes and emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless there is perversity, illegality, or gross error. The concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts were held to be reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence.

On sentencing, the trial court imposed simple imprisonment for three months and awarded compensation equal to the cheque amount (Rs.4,50,000). The courts noted the deterrent nature of Section 138 and upheld the sentence as not excessive. Although the Supreme Court has recommended fines up to twice the cheque amount with interest, the absence of appeal against the compensation order precluded interference.

In conclusion, the courts held that all ingredients of Section 138 were established: the cheque was issued in discharge of a legal liability; it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds; the accused received the statutory notice but failed to pay. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption of consideration and liability. The accused's contentions regarding moneylending status, violation of tax provisions, and procedural irregularities were rejected. The judgments of the trial and appellate courts were affirmed, and the revision petition was dismissed.

Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts of crucial legal reasoning:

"The accused admitted the issuance of one cheque. He claimed that the cheques were taken by the complainant as security, which shows that the issuance of the second cheque was not denied by the accused. There is a presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for valid consideration to discharge the legal liability. The burden shifted upon the accused to rebut the presumption."

"The testimony of the defence witness did not prove the defence of the accused. This witness could not identify the person to whom the money was paid. A denied suggestion does not amount to any proof."

"The cheque return memo is presumed to be correct and the burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumption."

"The complainant is not required to prove the consideration before the Court. A negotiable instrument including a cheque carries a presumption of consideration in terms of Section 118(a) and under Section 139 of the Act."

"The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently, would not serve the purpose of the accused."

"Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments."

"The complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not a civil suit."

"The penal provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is intended to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instruments such as cheques without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same."

The core principles established are that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act operate strongly in favour of the complainant once the cheque issuance and signature are admitted; the accused bears the evidential burden to raise a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities; mere denial or unsubstantiated claims are insufficient; dishonour memos from banks are presumed correct; and the complainant is not required to prove financial capacity unless challenged with evidence. The revisional court's scope is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent perversity or illegality.

Final determinations on each issue are as follows: the accused issued the cheques in discharge of a legal liability; the statutory presumptions were rightly applied and not rebutted; the dishonour of cheques was properly proved; the accused received notice and failed to pay; the complainant was not proved to be a moneylender; non-compliance with tax provisions did not invalidate the complaint; the accused failed to establish a probable defence; the trial and appellate courts correctly appreciated evidence and law; and the sentence and compensation awarded were appropriate. The revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

---