The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to demonstrate a valid defense to avoid liability for dishonor of a cheque.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC, lays challenge to judgment dated 15.6.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), (Camp at Theog) Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 4-T/10 of 2020, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2019/1.2.2020, in Criminal Case No. 109-3 of 2014, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent/complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent court of law, stating therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque dated 20.9.2013, amounting to Rs. 79,000/- in favour of the complainant, however fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite having received legal notice issued to him, complainant had no option but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 24.12.2019, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.6.2022. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set- aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below.

5. Vide order dated 22.7.2022, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below subject to petitioner’s depositing 50% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bonds within the stipulated period, but thereafter, he repeatedly got the matter adjourned, enabling him to deposit the remaining amount. Time and again, this Court came to be informed that petitioner-accused is ready and willing to pay the entire amount of compensation, but fact remains that despite sufficient opportunity, entire amount of compensation has not been deposited.

6. Today during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner is not coming forward to impart instructions and as such, this Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the judgment impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court finds that both the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there is no scope of interference.

8. Factum with regard