Cheque Bounce over Apple Sale: Himachal Pradesh HC Confirms Conviction in NI Act Case [Read Order]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by Ramesh Hetta, affirming his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in a cheque dishonour case involving payment for apple produce.

The petitioner had challenged concurrent findings of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions Judge, which had held him guilty of issuing a dishonoured cheque for ₹1,72,000 to the complainant, an orchardist named Jyoti Badehta. The trial court had sentenced the accused to one year of simple imprisonment and directed him to pay ₹3,44,000 as compensation.

The case arose from a business arrangement in 2015, wherein the accused allegedly purchased apples from the complainant and issued a cheque as payment. The cheque, however, was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. A statutory notice dated 01.03.2016 was issued and served upon the accused on 04.03.2016. Despite receipt of the notice, no payment was made within the 15-day statutory window, prompting initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements!, Click Here

In his defence, the accused claimed that the cheque was issued as a security instrument and that no apples were ever delivered, as he was denied access to the orchard. He further contended that the cheque had been misused and tampered with.

The trial court rejected these claims and convicted the accused, observing that he had admitted to issuing the cheque and had not led any reliable evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The first appellate court upheld the conviction, noting that the accused had taken contradictory stands and failed to substantiate either.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the complainant failed to prove the actual sale of apples and had not produced delivery receipts or other corroborating evidence. He also submitted that the cheque had been altered and was issued only as a security measure.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, hearing the matter, observed that once the issuance of cheque is admitted, a presumption arises under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act that it was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption on a preponderance of probabilities.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements!, Click Here

The Court found that the accused had not produced any convincing evidence to support his claims. The court relying on Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar and Rangappa v. Sri Mohan asserted that even if the cheque was issued as security, if it is presented and dishonoured, liability under Section 138 would still arise.

The High Court also took note of inconsistencies in the defence. The accused had, at various stages, claimed the cheque was for a loan, for apple purchase, and also that it was misused, undermining the credibility of his defence. No forensic evidence or credible witness was brought forth to establish alteration or misuse of the cheque.

It further noted that the compensation awarded was twice the cheque amount and reasonable in the circumstances, and that the sentence of one year simple imprisonment was neither excessive nor harsh. Finding no illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on Ramesh Hetta.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates