The dishonour of a cheque and lack of payment under Section 138 establishes legal liability unless rebutted, with presumption favoring the holder of the cheque.

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 09.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.143-R/10 of 2023, titled Sanjay Ranjta Vs. Kirti Pal, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal case No.122-3 of 2019, 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 ten months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,30,000/- 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 August-September 2013, he sold apple boxes to accused on different dates for a sum of Rs.4,53,849/-. Accused did not make any payment qua aforesaid purchase, but subsequently, issued seven Cheques, five Cheques being drawn on account No.05640510000274 of UCO Bank and two Cheques drawn on account No.0741002100005604 of PNB Branch, Kumarsain, in order to discharge their lawful liability towards the complainant and also paid sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash to the complainant. However, aforesaid Cheques on their presentation to the Bank concerned, were dishonoured with the remarks “Account Frozen”. After receipt of aforesaid return memos, 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, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 30.09.2023, 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, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was partly allowed, whereby learned Appellate Court reduced the amount of compensation awarded by learned Court below from Rs.5,30,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-. In the afore background, one of the accused, namely Sanjay Ranjta, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Courts below. Another co-accused namely Ajay @ Boby has been already declared proclaimed offender in the proceedings before the Court below.

5. Vide order dated 30.08.2025, Coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below, subject to petitioner/accused depositing 50% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, however, fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, afor