Court dismisses revision plea of Ramesh Singh Nagarkoti, reiterating that admitted signature on cheque triggers presumption of liability unless rebutted by cogent evidence
In a significant judgment delivered on September 8, 2026, the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Ramesh Singh Nagarkoti, upholding his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment came in a cheque dishonour case registered as Criminal Case No.66 of 2023 in Almora district, where Nagarkoti was convicted for issuing a cheque that was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds.
The facts of the case reveal that respondent no.2 had lent an amount of ₹2,00,000 to Nagarkoti under the assurance that the latter would leverage his connections with the State Bank of India to waive an outstanding loan of approximately ₹6,00,000. When the bank later issued a recovery certificate, Nagarkoti issued a cheque of ₹2,00,000 in favor of respondent no.2. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured. Respondent no.2 issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, but Nagarkoti failed to make the payment, leading to his prosecution.
At trial, Nagarkoti admitted the signature on the cheque but contended that it was a blank signed cheque handed over to another individual, Kuldeep Bisht, and that the cheque particulars were filled by someone else, thereby asserting misuse. However, the trial and appellate courts rejected this defense, holding that mere denial or assertion of misuse without cogent evidence does not suffice to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice Alok Mahra, while delivering the judgment, emphasized the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019), which clarifies that a person who signs a cheque remains liable even if the cheque is filled in later by another person. The burden on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption is less stringent than the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt but requires raising a probable defense supported by material evidence.
The Court noted that Nagarkoti failed to produce any credible evidence demonstrating that the cheque was handed over for a purpose unconnected to any liability towards respondent no.2 or that it was misused. The difference in handwriting on the cheque particulars was held insufficient to dislodge the presumption of liability once the signature was admitted. The revisional court also reiterated that its jurisdiction is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless findings are perverse or illegal, which was not found in this case.
Consequently, the Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court, which included simple imprisonment for one year, a fine of ₹2,20,000 with ₹2,00,000 directed as compensation to the complainant, and additional imprisonment in case of default in payment.
This decision reinforces the strict approach adopted by courts in cheque bounce cases, underscoring the importance of statutory presumptions and the limited scope of defenses that can be raised by accused cheque drawers.
Bottom Line:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Dishonour of cheque - Statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 - Signature on cheque admitted by accused - Statutory presumptions operate unless rebutted by cogent evidence - Mere denial or assertion of misuse of blank cheque insufficient to rebut presumption.
Statutory provision(s):
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sections 138, 118(a), 139
Ramesh Singh Nagarkoti v. State of Uttarakhand, (Utt) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981458
