PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. RASHI AGARWAL

Sri BS Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, revision petition was by accused against concurrent erroneous findings of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was submitted, present proceedings arose out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘CrPC’, for short) alleging that accused was introduced to complainant by his brother-in-law one CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P22. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false. Same was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of CrPC. Thereafter, accused deposed as DW.1 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D3. It was submitted, accused set up various defences including denying existence of relationship of creditor and

Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 418, it was submitted, presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act were not absolute, but rebuttable on establishing probable defence and admissions elicited from PW.1 would be sufficient to upset presumption.

It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99, had held, non-acceptance of claim about lending large amount of money, without corroborative material, by trial Court

On other hand, Sri Chandrashekar M, learned counsel appearing for Sri Bhargav G., advocate for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, cheque in question was given by accused to his brother-in-law to be handed over to complainant. Same would not cast any doubt about lending or issuance of cheque was not for any legally enforceable debt. It was submitted, Bank Statement showed complainant as proprietor of firm and Exs.P.20-22, IT returns of complainant shown income of more than Rs.20 Lakhs, substantiating financial capacity. In support of his submission, he relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 706, for proposition that on admission of drawing of cheque, presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would be attracted and same cannot be upset by merely questioning financial

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments and record.

Thus, this revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of perversity of findings especially insofar as proof of lending, financial capacity of complainant and failure to hold that accused had upset presumption under Section 139 of NI Act.

Though, accused denied existence of relationship of creditor and debtor between himself and complainant, defence set up included that cheque was issued to his brother-in-law as well as that it was stolen. Same would amount to admission about cheque belonging to accused and bearing his signature. Same would attract presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act. As held in Basaligappa's case (supra), presumption would be rebuttable on establishment of probable defence. In this regard, accused questioned financial capacity of

Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE