Presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act holds where accused admits cheque issuance but fails to rebut lawful liability with evidence; security cheques enforceable if dishonoured due to default; no revisional interference absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., lays challenge to judgment dated 04.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Paonta Sahib, in Criminal Appeal No.105-N/10 of 2022, titled Daulat Ram Vs. H.P. State Co- Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank and Another, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr. Complaint No.28/3 of 2020, 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 three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.85,985/- 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 accused had obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant-Bank vide loan account No.PGH-119, with a promise to pay the same as per the agreement, but he defaulted to repay the same regularly and thus, violated financial discipline of the Bank. However, subsequently, accused with a view to regularise the loan account, issued a Cheque bearing No.438622, dated 06.01.2020, amounting to Rs.75,985/-, drawn on UCO Bank, Branch Shillai. However, fact remains that afore Cheque on its presentation to the Bank concerned, was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. After receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused with a legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good well within stipulated time. 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, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 06.07.2022, 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.09.2023. 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 27.02.2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below, subject to petitioner/accused depositing 25% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, however, fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, aforesaid order was never complied with.

6. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner fairly stated that since petitioner/accused is not coming