P&H HC Upholds One-Year Jail Term, Rejects Man’s Claim Rs 2 Lakh Cheque Was Security For Electrical Work

The complainant alleged that he advanced the petitioner ₹2 lakh as a loan in June 2018.

In repayment, the petitioner allegedly issued a cheque for ₹2 lakh, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds.

The complainant sent a demand notice, but the petitioner neither paid nor replied

The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), sentencing him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹4 lakh; the first appellate court dismissed his appeal

In revision, the petitioner claimed that the cheque had been given as security for electrical work and challenged the complainant’s financial capacity

Section 138 of the NI Act criminalises the dishonour of a cheque issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, subject to the statutory requirements concerning presentation, demand notice, and non-payment.

Under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, a signed cheque attracts rebuttable presumptions of consideration and that it was received in discharge of a debt or liability; the accused bears the evidential burden of rebutting those presumptions

A challenge to the complainant’s financial capacity requires credible material before the complainant may be called upon to explain the source of funds; a bare suggestion is insufficient

In criminal revision, the High Court’s role is supervisory: it may intervene for illegality, impropriety, a material procedural or legal error, or a perverse or unsupported finding, but not merely because another view of the evidence is possible

No specific precedent was cited.

The petitioner admitted his signatures on the cheque, attracting the statutory presumptions.

His security-cheque account was unsupported by evidence: he gave no material particulars about the alleged work or when the cheque was obtained, and produced no evidence that he had been engaged by the complainant or had complained of misuse or sought return of the cheque

The financial-capacity objection had not been raised before the trial court, and no credible material supported it; a bare suggestion did not rebut the presumptions

The demand notice was sent to the petitioner’s correct address, and he did not claim that he resided elsewhere; the court therefore treated it as delivered

Finding no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the concurrent findings, the Court declined to interfere under its revisional jurisdiction

The revision petition was dismissed, leaving the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act and the sentence imposed by the trial court undisturbed