The accused's failure to raise a probable defense or contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability triggers the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORDER :

1. Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment, dated 3.4.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 86 Cr. A/10 of 2017, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.8.2017/12.10.2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. in criminal complaint No. 73/3 of 2015, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent No. 2/complainant (for short ‘complainant’) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for short ‘Act’) in the competent court of law, alleging therein that on 24.10.2014, respondent/complainant lent sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the accused on his request, enabling him to pay money to those persons, who had filed 3 or 4 complaints against him under Section 138 of the Act. With a view to discharge his liability, accused issued post dated cheque Ext. CW2/B, amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on H.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, Habban, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation came to be dishonoured vide memo dated 25-2-2015 Ex.CW1/C on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Complainant after receipt of memo from the bank concerned, served accused with legal notice Ex.CW2/D, calling upon him to make the payment good within the stipulated time, but since accused failed to make the payment within the time stipulated in the notice, complainant was compelled to institute the complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial court, present petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 3.4.2018, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments and order passed by learned Courts below.

5. Vide order dated 6.8.2018, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below subject to petitioner-accused depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- in the Registry of this Court and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within a period of four weeks. However, fact remains that aforesaid order never came to be complied with despite repeated opportunities. To enable the petitioner-accused to deposit the amount of compensation, case at hand came to be adjourned on 10 dates. Finally, on 8.4.2021 learned counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- stands paid directly to respondent No. 2/complainant by way of demand draft and parties are in process of settling the dispute amicably interse them and as such, this Court adjourned the matter and stayed the warrants of execution issued by the executing court below. After p