A presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque exists under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the accused to rebut it with a probable defense.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 22.01.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, Camp at Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2024, titled Nitin Chauhan Vs. Narain Singh, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.10.2022/19.10.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in complaint No.154/3 of 2016, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, “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 one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that in the month of October 2015, accused purchased apple boxes from him for a total consideration of Rs.1,04,400/-. With a view to make the payment of aforesaid consideration, accused issued Cheque bearing No.804214 dated 07.10.2015, drawn on PNB Bank, Branch Mauhri, District Shimla, amounting to Rs.1,04,400/-. However, fact remains that afore Cheque on its presentation to the Bank concerned, was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. After receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused with a legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good well within stipulated time. However, since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under of the Act in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 01.10.2022/19.10.2022, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove.

4. Though, at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, Camp at Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.01.2025. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below.

5. Vide order dated 13.10.2025, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below, subject to petitioner/accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, however, fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, aforesaid order was never complied with. Matter was lastly adjourned on 02.03.2026, on which date, on the vehement request of learned counsel representing the petitioner and by way of indulgence, this Court granted last opportunity to petitioner to comply with the order dated 13.10.2025 and deposit the compensation amount, but nothing has been done till date and as such, this Court is compelled to decide the petition on its own merits.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material adduced on record, v