Admitted signature mandates presumption of legally enforceable debt under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act.

The complainant (Respondent No. 2) advanced a hand loan of Rs. 95,000 to the applicant on May 13, 2002

To repay this, the applicant issued a cheque drawn on Nutan Nagarik Sahkari Bank, which was dishonored with the endorsement "Opening Balance Insufficient"

Despite a demand notice dated April 16, 2002, the applicant failed to make payment, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act

The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the applicant on July 30, 2011, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000

This conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge on January 31, 2012

The applicant preferred the present revision application but remained untraceable and out of contact with his advocate since being granted bail in 2012

1. Whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was successfully rebutted by the accused in light of his admitted signature on the cheque?

2. Whether the High Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 of the CrPC, should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts?

The court primarily applied Section 138 of the NI Act regarding the dishonor of cheques and Section 139 of the NI Act, which mandates a statutory presumption that a cheque is issued for a legally enforceable debt

It relied on Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant (2022) 6 SCC 735 and Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283 to establish that once a signature is admitted, the presumption of consideration is triggered

Regarding revisional jurisdiction, the court applied the principles from Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 and Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 204, which restrict the Revisional Court from re-appreciating evidence unless the lower court's findings are found to be perverse or suffer from a patent error of law

The court observed that the applicant admitted his signature on the cheque, which necessitated the drawing of a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act

Despite being given opportunities, the applicant failed to depose on oath or examine witnesses to rebut this presumption

The court rejected the applicant's contention that the cheque was merely for "security," noting that even a security cheque is a valuable security under Sections 20 and 87 of the NI Act, and the holder has the authority to complete the instrument

Furthermore, the court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is not a second appeal; since both lower courts assigned proper reasons based on evidence and no perversity was demonstrated, the concurrent findings remained undisturbed

The applicant's conduct—absconding for over a decade and failing to respond to bailable warrants—further indicated a lack of interest in the proceedings

The court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate

The interim relief granted earlier was vacated, and the applicant was ordered to surrender forthwith before the trial court to serve the remaining sentence