Failure to raise probable defence on preponderance of probabilities fails to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act; security cheques towards loan liability attract Section 138 upon dishonour.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, H.P. in criminal complaint No.81 of 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.40,000/- to the respondent-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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, H.P., alleging therein that accused, in order to run Dairy Unit, raised loan from it vide loan account No.99308100048237, which he agreed to repay in EMIs. With a view to discharge his lawful liability, accused had issued cheque 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 08.03.2021, 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 14.10.2024, 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, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.01.2025. 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 11.04.2025, 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 eight weeks, however, fact remains that aforesaid order was never complied with. Repeatedly matter came to be adjourned, enabling the accused to comply with aforesaid order, but fact remains that order dated 11.04.2025 was not complied with. On 20.06.2025, this Court came to be apprised by learned counsel for the accused that 30% of the compensation amount has been paid and remaining amount shall be paid within a period of six weeks. It also came to be stated before this Court that accused is ready and willing to settle the matter