Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Diwan Chand - Petitioner
Versus
Mast Ram & Anr. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 124 of 2014
Decided On : 23-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr G.R. Palsra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms Anita, Advocate Mr Kapil Sharma, Advocate Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General

Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act based on reliable forensic evidence disproving accused's signature on cheque, as presumption under Sections 118 and 139 requires proof of execution; complainant must independently prove debt.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 118(a) and 139 - Cheque dishonoured for insufficient funds - Accused denied issuing cheque - Forensic science expert testified that specimen signatures, admitted signatures and disputed signatures on cheque were by different persons - Trial court acquitted accused holding cheque not issued by them - In appeal against acquittal, held that expert testimony reliable and uncontroverted; complainant failed to prove transaction details like hours of usage or produce records/logbook/operator; no presumption attracted without proof that accused executed cheque - Trial court took reasonable view, interference not warranted even if another view possible. (Paras 6, 18-22, 24)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court to interfere only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence or no reasonable person could acquit - In cheque dishonour cases, appellate court can examine if accused discharged rebuttal burden under presumption, but same rigour as other criminal appeals not applicable; however, here acquittal reasonable. (Paras 14-17)

Facts of the case:
Complainant alleged accused hired excavator for plot preparation at Rs.750 per hour for 1225 hours, paid part amount, issued cheque for Rs.5,00,000 which was dishonoured; notice served but liability not discharged. Accused denied liability and cheque issuance; forensic report disproved signatures.

Findings of Court:
Expert evidence falsifies complainant's version; complainant unaware of work details, no agreement, records or witnesses produced to prove debt; presumption not triggered.

Issues: Whether trial court erred in relying on forensic report to hold cheque not issued by accused; whether complainant proved legally enforceable debt triggering presumption; scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in cheque cases.

Ratio Decidendi: Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 arises only if cheque execution proved; reliable forensic evidence rebutting signatures justifies acquittal; appellate court not to substitute view unless perverse, even in cheque cases where presumption exists. Result : Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. cheque issued for excavator rental liability under ni act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial court acquitted on forensic signature mismatch evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. forensic opinion insufficient against ni act presumption. (Para 7 , 9)
4. no appellate interference with reasonable acquittal view. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. interfere with acquittal only if perverse; relaxed in ni cases. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. forensic expert credibly disproved accused's cheque signature. (Para 18 , 19)
7. complainant failed to prove debt or transaction details. (Para 20 , 21)
8. ni presumption requires proof of accused's signature first. (Para 22)
9. appeal dismissed upholding trial court's reasonable acquittal. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2014, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). (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 appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was alleged that the accused had taken a contract for the preparation of plots for the Housing Board, Bajaura. They hired an excavator owned by the complainant at the rate of Rs. 750/- per hour with effect from 12.05.2007 till 03.11.2007. They operated the excavator for 1225 hours during the aforesaid period. An amount of Rs. 9,18,750/- was due to the complainant as the rent. The accused paid Rs. 3,19,554/- to the complainant and issued a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant on 25.11.2007 to discharge their legal liability. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused, which was duly served upon them. However, they failed to repay the amount to the complainant. Hence, a complaint was filed against the accused for taking action against them as per the law.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to them for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. They specifically denied that they had issued any cheque in the complainant’s favour to discharge their liability. They examined Visheshwar Sharma (DW1), Assistant Director of State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), to prove their defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the statement of Visheshwar Sharma (DW1) proved that the signatures of Dina Nath taken before the Court, his admitted signatures and the signatures on the cheque were not the same. This established the defence of the accused that they had not issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. Hence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint. The accused had taken the complainant’s excavator on rent. The report issued by the Director of SFSL was just an opinion and could not have been made a basis for dismissing the complaint. The complainant presented the cheque