The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid unless a credible defense is presented, and dishonor of a cheque issued as security can lead to conviction under Section 138.

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 18.12.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (Camp at Arki), in Criminal Appeal No. 10-AK/10 of 2022, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.5.2022, in Criminal Case No. 96/3 of 2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, 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 one month and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- 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, who is doing business of transportation, approached him for an amount of Rs. 2.00 lakh, to purchase a vehicle. Complainant alleged that on the afore request of the accused, he had withdrawn sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- from his JCC Bank Account, Arki Branch and out of the said withdrawal, sum of Rs. 2.00 lakh was given to the accused in cash on 21.9.2013, who assured to return the same within a short span, however, since despite many requests accused failed to pay the amount. Subsequently with a view to discharge his liability, accused issued cheque bearing No.473325 dated 12.4.2017 amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- 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 time period stipulated in 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 6.5.2022, 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 18.12.2023. 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 22.3.2024, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below, subject to deposit of 30% of the cheque amount with the trial court. Though in terms of aforesaid order, accused deposited 30% of the compensation amount, but thereafter, matter was repeatedly adjourned on his request, enabling him to deposit the remaining amount, but fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, petitioner has not deposited the entire amount of compensation. In the afore backdrop, learned counsel representing petitioner-accused fairly stated that since petitioner has not deposited full amount of compensation, this Court may proceed to decide the petition on its own merits.

6. 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