Rangeen Kumar vs Arun Dogra And Another

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner/accused filed a criminal revision against concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Sessions Court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed Rs. 2,50,000/- and issued a cheque in discharge of the liability, which was dishonoured with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The accused claimed the cheque had been stolen and no FIR was lodged, but failed to lead any defence evidence before the Trial Court.

The Trial Court and the Appellate Court both held that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed and that the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act had not been rebutted. The accused was convicted and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the Trial Court's findings.

Before the High Court in revision, the petitioner raised a fresh ground that the complaint was filed on 10.07.2020, beyond 45 days from the date of service of notice on 02.03.2020, and was therefore barred by limitation under the NI Act. The judgment text as available is truncated at the point where the Court begins its analysis of the submissions.

Catchwords: Negotiable Instruments Act · cheque dishonour · insufficient funds · presumption under Section 139 · legally enforceable debt · rebuttal of presumption · limitation period · notice · criminal revision · concurrent findings

Cheque dishonour (Section 138 NI Act)