Presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act holds unless rebutted by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; High Court in revision refrains from re-appreciating evidence absent perversity in concurrent findings.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 24.5.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (Camp at Arki), in Criminal Appeal No. 16-AK/10 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.4.2024, in Criminal Complaint No. 117/3 of 2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner- 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. 6,00,000/- to the complainant.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent/complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent court of law, stating therein that accused had applied for Dudh-Ganga Scheme (Diary Farm) loan to the tune of Rs. 3,15,000/- from the complainant-Bank, which was duly sanctioned by the bank on 31.1.2011. Loan was disbursed to the accused on 30.3.2011 after execution of term loan agreement and hypothecation deed, between mother of the accused and the bank as per agreement, but accused failed pay back the loan amount and made default in paying the regular monthly installments.

3. Accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing No. 868699 dated 21.4.2016 amounting to Rs. 5,60,000/- in favour of the complainant-bank, however fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned, was dishonoured on account of “insufficiency of funds”. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite having received legal notice issued to him, complainant had no option but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 3.4.2024, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.5.2025. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set- aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below.

6. Vide order dated 29.8.2025, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below subject to deposit of 30% of the cheque amount with the trial court, but fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, aforesaid order never came to be complied with.

7. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that since petitioner is not coming forward to deposit the amount, this Court may proceed to decide the petition on its own merits.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the judgment impugned in the instant