An admitted signature on a blank cheque attracts statutory presumptions despite particulars being filled by another.

Respondent No. 2, who was acquainted with the revisionist, allegedly paid the revisionist ₹2,00,000 on 28.10.2022—₹1,00,000 by cheque and ₹1,00,000 in cash—on the representation that the revisionist would use his connections with State Bank of India officials to secure waiver of the outstanding amount on respondent No. 2’s loan.

When the outstanding amount was not waived, the revisionist issued a cheque for ₹2,00,000 to respondent No. 2. The cheque was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds,” and despite service of the statutory notice, the revisionist failed to make payment. Respondent No. 2 thereafter instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora convicted the revisionist under Section 138 and sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,20,000, including ₹2,00,000 as compensation to respondent No. 2. The appellate court dismissed the revisionist’s appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The revisionist challenged both judgments before the High Court.

Whether the admission of the revisionist’s signature on the cheque attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, despite the defence that the remaining particulars were filled in by another person?

Whether the revisionist had rebutted the presumptions by establishing a probable defence that the blank signed cheque had been handed over to Kuldeep Bisht and was subsequently misused by respondent No. 2?

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction suffered from perversity, illegality, material irregularity, jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction?

The Court applied Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which criminalises the dishonour of a cheque issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, subject to the statutory requirements of presentation, notice, and failure to pay.

Sections 118(a) and 139 create rebuttable presumptions that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge, wholly or partly, of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Relying on Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, the Court held that a person who signs and voluntarily delivers a cheque remains liable even if the cheque’s particulars are filled in by another person; a mere allegation that a blank cheque was misused does not rebut the statutory presumption.

The accused may rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities by raising a probable defence.

The Court further applied the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, under which concurrent factual findings are not ordinarily reappreciated unless they are perverse, manifestly illegal, unsupported by evidence, or affected by jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice.

The revisionist admitted his signature on the cheque but contended that the other particulars had been filled in by respondent No. 2 and that the cheque had originally been handed over to Kuldeep Bisht. The Court held that the admitted signature triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139.

In light of Bir Singh, the difference in handwriting and the alleged completion of the cheque by another person did not invalidate the instrument or by themselves displace the presumption.

The revisionist produced no cogent material showing that the cheque had been delivered to Kuldeep Bisht for a purpose wholly unrelated to any liability towards respondent No. 2, nor did he establish that the cheque had been unlawfully procured and misused.

His defence therefore remained a bald and unsubstantiated assertion and did not create a probable defence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions.

Since the trial court had evaluated the evidence and the appellate court had independently affirmed the conviction, and since no perversity, illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error was demonstrated, the High Court declined to interfere in revision.

The allegation that the cheque was blank or that its particulars were filled in by another person was insufficient, by itself, to avoid liability under Section 138.

Finding no perversity, illegality, material irregularity, jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the Court dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the conviction, the sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment, the fine of ₹2,20,000, payment of ₹2,00,000 as compensation to respondent No. 2, deposit of ₹20,000 in the State Treasury, and the default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.