Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Vijay Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
M/s New Shilpi Jewellers through its Partner Pankaj Chauhan - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 642 of 2025
Decided On : 23-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision against upheld s.138 conviction for dishonoured cheque. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial proceedings and lower courts confirmed cheque liability offence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. challenges: limitation, unregistered firm, no authorisation, ignored payments. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. revisional jurisdiction confined to patent errors or perversity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. unregistered firm maintainable for s.138 ni act complaints. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. partner files s.138 complaint without specific authorisation. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. cheque admission triggers ss.118/139 ni act presumption. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. post-notice payments do not extinguish s.138 offence. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. evidence required to rebut ni act presumption. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 10. bank memo presumes cheque dishonour under s.146. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 11. s.142(b) limitation excludes notice service date. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 12. all s.138 ni act ingredients satisfied. (Para 35) |
| 13. deterrent sentence, compensation, default imprisonment upheld. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 14. revision dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.9.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.5.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court) were upheld (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is a partner of M/s Shilpi Jewellers. The accused purchased gold worth Rs.1,84,000/- from the complainant on 8.11.2019 vide Invoice No. 1227. He issued a cheque of Rs.1,84,000/- (Ex.C2), drawn on State Bank of India, to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ vide memo (Ex.C4). The complainant issued a legal notice (Ex.C5) asking the accused to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was served upon the accused, and an acknowledgment (Ex.C7) was received by him. The accused failed to repay the amount; hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per law.
3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his complaint.
5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the complainant’s case. He asserted that the cheque was issued as security, and it was misused by the complainant. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed. The complainant admitted in the cross-examination that the accused had paid Rs.1,76,000/-during the pendency of the complaint. The complainant produced the details (Ex.C8), which showed that the liability of Rs.5,05,141/- was due. Therefore, the payment of the amount during the pendency of the complaint would not help the accused. All the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act were duly satisfied. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year,
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; unregistered firm competent for s138 NI Act complaint; ss118/139 presumptions arise on cheque admission, rebuttable by evidence; subsequent payments do ....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption under NI Act ss.118(a),139 of debt discharge; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Revisional jurisdiction bars reappreciation absent pe....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity. NI Act presumptions u/ss 118,139 arise on cheque admission; accused must rebut with evidence. No initial complainant ....
Revisional court upheld s138 NI Act conviction where accused admitted cheque but failed to rebut ss118/139 presumptions via evidence; limited interference absent perversity in concurrent findings; fi....
Section 139 NI Act presumption of liability rebuttable by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; contradictory accused pleas and non-examination of witness fail rebuttal; revisional juri....
Admission of cheque issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if debt subsists; accused must lead evide....
Admission of cheque signature triggers presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act of debt discharge; security cheques attract Section 138 liability on dishonour; accused must rebut with evidenc....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption of debt under NI Act ss118(a),139; accused's lost cheque plea fails without bank report; revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, upholding conc....
Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act arise on implicit admission of cheque issuance via cross-examination; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial; revisional jurisdiction limi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
