Punjab & Haryana HC: Cheque dishonour conviction upheld—Admission of signature invokes presumption of debt, no defence proved

Case Name: Raj Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Date of Judgment: January 9, 2020
Citation: CRR No. 2866 of 2019 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh

Held: The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, affirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Once the petitioner admitted his signatures on the cheque, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose that it was issued towards a legally enforceable debt. The petitioner’s claim that the cheque was obtained under police pressure and in connivance with the complainant was rejected for lack of supporting evidence.

Summary: The petitioner was convicted by the trial court in 2016 for dishonour of a cheque of ₹8,50,000/-, which conviction was upheld by the appellate court in October 2019. In revision, the petitioner argued that his signatures on the cheque were forcibly obtained during a compromise at a police station, and also alleged non-disclosure of the money by the complainant in income tax returns. The Court held that (i) mere allegation of coercion without contemporaneous complaint or corroborative evidence could not rebut the statutory presumption, (ii) non-disclosure in IT returns may attract consequences under tax law but does not invalidate the cheque, and (iii) the petitioner failed to examine key witnesses such as the notary to substantiate his defence. Citing Gurmeet Singh v. State of Haryana (2012) and Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019 SC), the Court reiterated that the presumption of debt continues unless rebutted by probable evidence, which was absent here.

Decision: Revision dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act affirmed.