Statutory presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act not rebutted by accused's unproved security cheque claim; even security for loan debt attracts Section 138 conviction on dishonour; no revisional interference absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.200-P/X/2023, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. in criminal complaint No.231-III/21/19, 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 one month and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent No.1-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, Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P., alleging therein that pursuant to request made by the accused for grant of education loan, it had sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- on 17.11.2012 in favour of the accused vide account No.641100JB00000334. Though aforesaid amount was to be repaid in installments, but default was made in repaying the loan and as on 30.09.2019, Rs.5,57,000/- was outstanding in the loan account of the accused. With a view to discharge his liability, accused had issued cheque bearing No.589024 dated 11.10.2019 in favour of the complainant, but aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite his having received legal notice dated 18.10.2019, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 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 07.07.2023, 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.04.2025. 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 07.07.2025, 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. Despite repeated opportunities, neither afore order was complied with nor accused came present, as such, this Court repeatedly issued show cause notices to the accused, but he failed to come present. Show cause notice issued to the accused for 10.11.2025