Accused failing to raise probable defence on preponderance of probabilities cannot rebut Section 139 presumption in cheque dishonour cases; revisional court upholds concurrent conviction absent miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.48/2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in criminal complaint No.154/2021, whereby the learned Court below, while holding the petitioner-accused (in short the "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.4,10,000/- to respondent No.2-complainant (in short the "complainant").

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., alleging therein that in the month of May, 2021, the accused approached the complainant for financial help and represented that he was in urgent need of money to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- for his business purpose and requested him to lend and advance the aforesaid amount. Complainant alleged that on the request made by the accused, he lent sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the accused in two installments for a short term. With a view to discharge his liability, accused had issued cheque bearing No.217468 dated 02.08.2021 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of the complainant, but aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite his having received legal notice dated 10.08.2021, 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 27.02.2024, 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 the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.03.2025. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned Court below.

5. Vide order dated 04.12.2025, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below subject to accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount within a period of four weeks, however, fact remains that aforesaid order was never complied with. Repeatedly time was granted to the accused to comply with the aforesaid order, but in vain.

6. Today, during the proceedings of the