Failure to raise probable defence sustains presumptions under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act regarding cheque for lawful debt; revisional court upholds concurrent conviction absent miscarriage of justice. (24 words)

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.3-AK/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No.217/3 of 2018, 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.80,000/- 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 accused applied for loan amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant’s bank and loan was sanctioned in the name of accused on 15.09.2015. Afore loan was to be repaid/returned by the accused as per terms and conditions of loan agreement. However, on account of default in repayment, loan account of the accused was declared as NPA and sum of Rs.2,14,272/- along with interest was shown to be outstanding in his account. With a view to discharge his lawful liability and regularization of his loan account, though accused issued cheque bearing No. 025601 dated 01.07.2018 amounting to Rs.60,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Arki, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, but aforesaid cheque on its presentation was returned back vide memo dated 06.07.2018 with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite his having received legal notice dated 28.07.2018, 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 16/29.01.2024, 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, Arki, District Solan, H.P., accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., but same was ismissed vide judgment dated 12.09.2024. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for setting-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned Court below.

5. Vide order dated 02.01.2025, 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.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount within a period of eight weeks, however, fact remains that aforesaid order was never complied with. Repeatedly time was granted to the accused to comp