Unsubstantiated allegations against counsel and shifting, contradictory defenses fail to rebut statutory presumptions under Section 139 NI Act.

The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act"), alleging he advanced a friendly cash loan of ₹2,55,000 to the petitioner in 2016, for which a cheque was issued and subsequently dishonored for "Funds Insufficient".

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner on 17.04.2023, sentencing him to six months imprisonment and compensation.

The Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 06.08.2024.

The petitioner approached the High Court via a revision petition with a 603-day delay, citing negligence of his previous counsel and his own illiteracy as grounds for condonation.

1. Whether the petitioner established "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the 603-day delay in filing the revision petition.

2. Whether the petitioner successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act through a probable defense.

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, emphasizing that "sufficient cause" requires a bona fide explanation rather than mere generosity, as held in Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran.

The court applied Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, which mandate a rebuttable presumption that a cheque is issued for consideration and discharge of debt.

It relied on Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa regarding the "preponderance of probabilities" standard for the accused.

The court relied on Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, which establishes that once execution is admitted, the burden shifts to the accused to prove a probable defense.

Regarding the delay, the court found the petitioner's claim of being misled by counsel unsubstantiated, noting the absence of fee receipts, affidavits, or complaints to the Bar Council.

The court remarked that a diligent litigant would not wait 16 months on oral assurances alone.

On the merits, the court noted the petitioner admitted his signatures on the cheque.

The court found his defense "ever-changing": at the notice stage, he claimed a loan from the complainant; in his Section 313 statement, he claimed the loan was from a partner, Kamal Singh; and in his testimony, the number of alleged security cheques changed from 12 to 6.

The court highlighted the petitioner's failure to demand the return of security cheques or file any police complaint regarding the alleged misuse as conduct inconsistent with a probable defense.

On the merits, the court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts suffered from no perversity as the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumptions.

The revision petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to surrender before the Trial Court on 30.07.2026 to serve his sentence.