The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains in favor of the holder unless the accused provides credible evidence to rebut it.

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 23.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.32-10 of 2016, titled Arun Chauhan Vs. Vikrant Sharma , affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal case No.8-2 of 2013, 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 six months and pay fine to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- 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 June 2012, accused borrowed sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the complainant and with a view to discharge his liability, issued Cheque No.638177, dated 17.12.2012, amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-. 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 Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 22.07.2016, 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, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.05.2024. 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 25.03.2025, 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 and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, however, fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, aforesaid order was never complied with.

6. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner fairly stated that since petitioner/accused is not coming forward to impart instructions and he has not complied with the order dated 25.03.2025, this Court may proceed to decide the petition on its own merits.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material adduced on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgments, this Court sees no reason to agree with Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, learned co