Cheques issued in discharge of a lawful liability create a presumption of guilt under Section 138, which the accused must rebut to avoid conviction.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 442 of the BNSS, lays challenge to judgment dated 16.09.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2024, titled Mohinder Singh Vs. Tirath Ram , affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal complaint No.932-I/2015, 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 two years and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- 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 accused herein, who was his fast friend and raised loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Branch Jari. On 27.06.2013, accused approached him and stated that he is in dire need of money to repay the amount of loan and requested him to purchase his land measuring 0-2-15 bighas, being 1/6 shares, out of total land measuring 2-4-0 bighas, comprising in Khasra No.232, Khata/Khatoni No.106/178 min, situated at Phati Jari, Kothi Harkandi, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, along with two storied lintel roofed building, having four rooms, three bath rooms and one kitchen and the said land and building were already mortgaged by the accused with Punjab National Bank, Branch Jari. Complainant alleged that with a view to help the accused, he agreed to purchase the said land along with the building standing over it for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/-,out of which Rs. 50,000/- were already paid to the accused by the complainant and remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was agreed to be deposited by the complainant in Punjab National Bank, Jari, for payment of loan amount. The complainant alleged that it was agreed inter se parties that if the accused repaid the sale consideration amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant on or before 27.06.2014, the agreement to sell shall be deemed to have been cancelled. In terms of agreement entered inter se parties, complainant deposited sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in PNB Jari for payment of loan amount of the accused. On 27.06.2014, complainant approached the accused to execute the sale deed of the said land and building in his favour or to repay the amount of sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/-, but the accused delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally on 15.12.2014, accused approached the complainant and said that he is not interested to sell the land and building and he is ready to repay the amount of sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant. Complainant alleged that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued following five post-dated Cheques, drawn on his account No.1737000001940, maintained at HDFC Bank, Branch Kullu, Tehsil and District Kullu, in favour of complainant:

3. Cheques, detailed at Sr. No.3 and 4 of the table given hereinabove, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- each on its presentation to the Bank concer