Defense evidence produced for the first time at the trial stage without cross-examination of complainant lacks evidentiary value.

The petitioner (accused) and the complainant had business dealings where the complainant advanced ₹4,25,000/-. To discharge a remaining liability of ₹2,25,000/-, the petitioner issued three cheques totaling ₹2,50,000/- dated between March and May 2011

Upon presentation, the cheques were dishonored. Despite a legal notice, the petitioner failed to pay, leading to Complaint Case No. 2130 of 2011

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentencing him to five months S.I. and ₹2,00,000/- compensation, which was upheld by the Appellate Court

The petitioner moved the High Court in revision, primarily arguing that he had paid ₹2,00,000/- in cash as evidenced by a receipt (Ext.A), which the lower courts allegedly ignored

1. Whether the defense evidence (Ext.A - money receipt) was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption against the petitioner and justify setting aside the concurrent findings of conviction

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, which governs the criminal liability for dishonor of cheques issued for the discharge of debt

The court applied evidentiary principles under the Indian Evidence Act regarding the proof of documents and the cross-examination of witnesses, specifically the rule that a witness must be confronted with a document or contradictory fact (Ext.A) before it can be used to impeach their testimony or satisfy the burden of proof

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to prove the receipt (Ext.A) in accordance with the law. Significantly, the petitioner did not confront the complainant with this document during the complainant's cross-examination, nor was the scriber or any witness to the receipt examined

The Court found that this defense was introduced as a "surprise" during the defense evidence stage only. Furthermore, the Court noted that if the petitioner had indeed paid the amount, his failure to take legal action against the complainant for the return of the original cheques rendered his plea unreliable

The High Court held that there was no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts that would warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction

The Criminal Revision was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed. The petitioner’s bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two months to undergo the remaining sentence