Dishonoured cheque attracts presumption of lawful debt under NI Act unless rebutted by accused on preponderance of probabilities; failure justifies conviction even for security cheque with subsisting liability; no revisional interference absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 06.08.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2024, titled Rangeen Kumar Vs. Saurabh Mehra , affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2024/28.02.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in complaint registration No.03/2021, 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 one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- 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 October 2020, accused approached complainant and requested to advance him monetary help of Rs.3,50,000/- for personal needs. Complainant advanced loan to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- to the accused, who though assured to repay the entire loan amount within a period of two months, but fact remains that aforesaid amount was not paid within two months and thereafter, with a view to discharge his liability, issued Cheque bearing No.539061 dated 16.12.2020, amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of complainant. However, on presentation of aforesaid Cheque to the Bank concerned, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. After receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused with a legal notice through registered post, 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 22.02.2024/28.02.2024, 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 Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.08.2024. 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 20.11.2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below, subject to petitioner/accused depositing 30% compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, however, fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, aforesaid order was never complied with.

6. On 03.03.2026, this Court