1 2025:CGHC:31641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 495 of 2019 Praveen Kumar Lal S/o Shri Prem Lal Aged About 55 Years R/o Qtr. No. 1-A, Street No. 07, Sector-4, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit Branch Bhilai, Through Branch Manager, 10, Indira Place, Civic Centre Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal , Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aman Kaushley, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 09.07.2025 1. The present revision is filed against the judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 273/2018 by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg to the Court of 1st Additional Session Judge, Durg (C.G.), whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 4204/2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg C.G. under AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.11 10:35:04 +0530 2 which the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Till rising of the Court and further it has been directed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- within a month, failing which, S.I. for 3 months. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the applicant had taken a loan of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant/Bank on 23.04.2003 for 05 years at the rate of 12% interest per annum, the amount of which including interest is Rs. 1,78.259/-. For payment of said amount, he had given a cheque No. 166603 dated 23.01.2013 of Rs. 1,78,259/- . The complainant presented the cheque given by the applicant in the bank on 23.01.2013, but the said cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the account of the applicant. The amount was not paid by the applicant even after the complainant informed about it. Thereafter, the complainant sent a notice to the applicant through his advocate on 30.01.2013, even after which the amount was not paid by him. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the applicant. 3. The learned trial Court on appreciation of material available on record and on due consideration of evidence adduced by the witnesses vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2018, convicted 3 the applicant under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him as mentioned above in para 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence before the learned Appellate Court, however, the appeal of the applicant has been dismissed. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and the appellate Court are no appropriate, therefore, the same is bad in the eyes of law. According to the learned counsel, the present is not a legal enforcement debt and even the same is time barred and as such the provisions of Section 138 will not come in the way. He also submits that the petitioner had never taken a loan of such huge amount, he has taken only Rs.30,000/- from the complainant, so far as the allegations regarding huge amount of Rs.60,000/- is totally false and fabricated. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the facts and evidences available on record while passing the impugned judgments. Thus, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. In order to determine the question whether offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is made out against the applicant, it 4 will be necessary to examine the scope and ambit of presumptions to be raised as envisaged by the provision of Section 139 of the Act, which read as under:- 139. Presumption in favour of holder. - It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Kalamani Tex and Ors VS. P. Balasubramanian reported in 2021(2)SCALE 434 held in para 18 as under “18. Even if we take the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, 36 where this court held that: “Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. 9. In similar matter of Sumeti Vij v Paramount Tech Fab Industries reported in (2022) 15 SCC 689, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 18, 19, 20 as under : 5 “18. Thereafter, two separate legal notices were served by the complainant which were duly received by the appellant and even after receiving the said notices, the appellant neither responded to the notices nor made any payment within the statutory period of fifteen days and only thereafter, two separate complaints were filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Act against the appellant-accused. 19. There was no response by the appellant at any stage either when the cheques were issued, or after the presentation to its banker, or when the same were dishonoured, or after the legal notices were served informing the appellant that both the cheques on being presented to its banker were returned with a note that it could not be honoured because of “insufficient funds”. 20. That apart, when the complainant exhibited all these documents in support of his complaints and recorded the statement of three witnesses in support thereof, the appellant has recorded her statement under Section 313 of the Code, but failed to record evidence to disprove or rebut the presumption in support of her defence available under Section 139 of the Act. The statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code is not a substantive evidence of defence, but only an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case of the accused. Therefore, there is no evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration. 10. The complainant has produced all the documents in his support and, in refuting the same, the applicant has not produced any other evidence except an application for payment of Ex.D-1 loan installment. Moreover, the respondent/complainant has proved 6 that the signature of the appellant/accused was on the cheque dated 23.01.2013 Ex.P.1 and the appellant/accused has not denied the same. The applicant did not make any effort to return the money and burden of returning the money was also on the applicant in relation to the transaction between the complainant and the applicant. The applicant did not present any evidence in his defence which could prove that the above disputed cheque was not given by him to the complainant/respondent. Therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that the applicant gave disputed cheque to the complainant and the applicant is found guilty in the present case. 11. In view of foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court are just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep