Blank Security Cheque Defence Rejected; Mere Claim of Security Cheque Cannot Defeat Section 138 Presumption; Revisional Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Absent Perversity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case
Case Name: Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 25 May 2026
Citation: CRR-1095-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the conviction of an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that a mere plea that the cheque was issued as a blank security cheque is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt. The Court observed that once signatures on the cheque are admitted, the burden shifts upon the accused to establish a probable defence through cogent evidence.
Summary: The revision petition challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsa, and the appellate judgment affirming the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
According to the complainant, the petitioner approached him in December 2015 seeking a friendly loan of ₹1.50 lakh to meet expenses relating to the delivery of his wife. Subsequently, in January 2016, the petitioner allegedly requested an additional amount of ₹2.20 lakh for medical treatment of his newborn child. The complainant claimed that in discharge of the total liability of ₹3.70 lakh, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 06.06.2016 which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Despite service of a statutory legal notice, payment was not made, leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Before the trial court, the complainant examined bank officials, the advocate who issued the legal notice, and himself to establish the transaction and dishonour of the cheque. The complainant also relied upon a written agreement executed by the petitioner acknowledging liability of ₹3.70 lakh.
The petitioner denied liability and contended that he had worked at the complainant’s shop and had issued a blank signed cheque merely as security against advances received during his employment. He further denied receipt of the legal notice and argued that the cheque had been misused. The petitioner also attempted to rely upon an alleged settlement under which the dispute had purportedly been resolved for ₹1 lakh, out of which ₹65,000 had already been paid.
The trial court rejected these defences and convicted the petitioner. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the petitioner had admitted his signatures on both the cheque and the written acknowledgment of liability, while failing to produce any evidence to substantiate his defence.
Before the High Court, it was argued that the complainant had failed to prove advancement of the alleged loan and that the entire story of lending ₹3.70 lakh was unsupported by independent evidence. It was further contended that the courts below had ignored material contradictions and failed to properly appreciate evidence regarding the alleged compromise between the parties.
Justice Sumeet Goel rejected these submissions and observed that once the petitioner admitted his signatures on the cheque, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act immediately operated in favour of the complainant. The Court emphasized that it was for the accused to explain the circumstances in which the cheque was issued and to rebut the presumption of liability through credible evidence. Mere assertions that the cheque was issued as security or that blank signed papers had been misused were held insufficient.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to challenge the execution of the written agreement acknowledging liability and had not examined any witness to prove fabrication or misuse of signed papers. The alleged compromise was also found unsupported by any independent evidence and had not been put to the complainant during cross-examination.
Relying upon the settled principle that revisional courts do not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error, the High Court held that no material illegality or miscarriage of justice had been demonstrated. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar reiterating the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction against concurrent findings.
Decision: Dismissing the revision petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to rebut the statutory presumption attached to the dishonoured cheque and had not established any probable defence warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below.