Sunil Kumar vs Ajay Kumar and another

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner/accused filed a criminal revision against concurrent judgments of conviction passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused had admitted borrowing Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant and had issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Bhota, which was dishonoured with the endorsement 'account closed'. The legal notice served upon the accused was returned undelivered and was treated as deemed service in law.

The Trial Court held that since the issuance of the cheque was not disputed, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act stood attracted, shifting the burden upon the accused to rebut the same. The accused failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal despite repeated adjournments. The accused was convicted and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 70,000/-, and compensation of Rs. 68,000/- to the complainant. The Appellate Court upheld these findings.

The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, reiterated that a revisional court is not an appellate court and may only rectify patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or errors of law. Finding no such error in the concurrent findings of the courts below, and noting that the accused had neither rebutted the presumption nor led any defence evidence, the revision was dismissed.

Catchwords: Negotiable Instruments Act · cheque dishonour · account closed · presumption under Section 118(a) · presumption under Section 139 · legally enforceable debt · security cheque · deemed service of notice · revisional jurisdiction · concurrent findings · burden of proof · rebuttal of presumption

Cheque dishonour (Section 138 NI Act)