Borrower Fails To Prove ₹1 Lakh Repayment As Gauhati HC Upholds ₹2.6 Lakh Cheque-Bounce Conviction

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) for a cheque of ₹2,60,000 allegedly issued to repay a loan.

The Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction, reduced the fine to ₹4,00,000, and directed adjustment of ₹52,000 already paid.

The petitioner maintained that he had borrowed only ₹1,00,000, repaid it with interest, and given the cheque as security; he also challenged the complainant’s financial capacity, the statutory presumptions, the Section 313 examination, and the sentence.

He sought revision of the concurrent findings of conviction.

Section 138 of the NI Act applies where a cheque issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of a legally enforceable debt or liability is dishonoured and the statutory requirements are met; Sections 118 and 139 create rebuttable presumptions concerning consideration and the cheque’s receipt in discharge of a debt or liability, which the accused may rebut on a balance of probabilities.

A security cheque may attract Section 138 if the underlying liability becomes due and remains unpaid (*Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand*, AIR 2021 SC 5732).

Once the cheque signature is admitted or established, the statutory presumptions operate, subject to rebuttal by a probable defence (*Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian*, (2021) 5 SCC 283).

Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not a second appeal; ordinarily, the High Court does not reappreciate evidence absent a glaring feature or material illegality (*State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand*, (2004) 7 SCC 659; *State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri*, (1999) 2 SCC 452).

The High Court held that the courts below had considered the petitioner’s account of a smaller loan, repayment, and the cheque’s alleged security character.

The appellate court had found DW-2 did not witness the repayment, considered the absence of a receipt or other contemporaneous proof, and did not find DW-3’s evidence reliable; it also noted that the petitioner had not replied to the statutory notice.

The petitioner’s assertions about the complainant’s lending activity and financial capacity did not, without supporting material, establish that the transaction was unlawful or rebut the presumptions.

The appellate judgment recorded the petitioner’s explanation under Section 313, and no resulting prejudice warranting interference was demonstrated.

Given the concurrent findings and the limits of revisional review, the High Court found no material illegality in the conviction or modified sentence.

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the courts below for information and necessary action.