Failure to rebut presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act by proving probable defence results in conviction under Section 138 for cheque dishonour, even if claimed as security; revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation absent perversity.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.46/2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.04.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2 Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No.328 of 2021, whereby the learned Court below, 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 six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent- complainant (hereinafter "complainant").

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law, alleging therein that in the month of April 2020, accused borrowed sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from him for his domestic use with further assurance to pay the same within stipulated time. With a view to discharge his lawful liability, though accused issued post dated cheque bearing No.000033 (Ext.C2/CW1) dated 26.12.2020 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, Paonta Sahib, but aforesaid cheque on its presentation was returned back vide memo dated 19.03.2021 (Ext.C3/CW1) with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite his having received legal notice dated 23.04.2017 (Ext.C4/CW1), complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under 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 02.04.2024, held the accused guilty of his 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 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2 Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.03.2025. 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 learned Court below.

5. Vide order dated 28.07.2025, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below subject to petitioner’s depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount within a period of four weeks, however, fact remains that aforesaid order was never complied with. Repeatedly time was granted to the accused to comply with the aforesaid order, but in vain.

6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused submitted that since accused is not coming forward to impart instructions, this Court may proceed to decide the case on its own merits.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pao