Dalip Singh Thaur vs Brij Bhushan

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner/accused filed a criminal revision against concurrent judgments of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Rohru, and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, Camp at Rohru. The complainant had alleged that a cheque of ₹25,390/- issued by the accused towards sale proceeds of 70 boxes of apples was dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds', and that despite a legal notice, the accused failed to repay the amount.

The accused contended before the revisional court that the cheque was a blank signed security cheque that was misused by filling in the amount, that his plea of repayment was proved on record, and that the sentence imposed was excessive. Both courts below had held that the admission of issuance of the cheque and of the signatures triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, which the accused failed to rebut by leading any defence evidence.

The High Court noted the settled legal position, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204, that a revisional court is not an appellate court and that the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow, confined to rectifying patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or errors of law, particularly where there are concurrent findings of conviction by two courts after detailed appreciation of evidence.

Catchwords: cheque dishonour · negotiable instruments · insufficient funds · criminal revision · revisional jurisdiction · concurrent findings · presumption under NI Act · security cheque · legal notice · sentence

Cheque dishonour (Section 138 NI Act)