Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sandeep Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
PNB – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 591 of 2022
Decided On : 01-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. loan advanced; cheque dishonoured for insufficient funds. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. accused admitted loan and cheque dishonour. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower courts upheld conviction under section 138. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. dispute over security cheque and recoveries. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited absent perversity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. ingredients of section 138 offence outlined. (Para 19) |
| 7. presumption of debt on admitted cheque issuance. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. subsisting liability shown by account statement. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 9. security cheques attract section 138 liability. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. post-dishonour payments do not erase offence. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 11. cgtmse protects bank, not borrower. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 12. no evidence rebutted statutory presumption. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 13. unclaimed notice deemed served. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 14. all section 138 ingredients satisfied. (Para 45) |
| 15. sentence reduced; compensation upheld. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 16. revision partly allowed. (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.10.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 5.1.20022 and order of sentence dated 7.5.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, 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 (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act. It is engaged in banking activities through various branches, and one such branch is located at Bilaspur. The accused approached the complainant for a term loan of Rs.26,66,000/- for the purchase of a new AMW 2518 Tipper. The complainant sanctioned the loan and advanced a sum of Rs.26,66,000/- to the accused. The amount was to be repaid in 58 equated monthly instalments of Rs.45,966/- along with a contractual interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum with monthly rests. It was agreed that in case of default, a penal interest at the rate of 2% would be charged, subject to the change as per the RBI Guidelines issued from time to time. The accused defaulted on the repayment of the loan. He issued a cheque of Rs.9,95,000/- to discharge part of his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to the Bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused, but it was returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’ and is deemed to be served. The accused failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused 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 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 Ludar Ram (CW1) to prove its complaint.
5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had approached the bank for the term loan of Rs.26,66,000/-. He admitted that the loan was to be repaid in 58 equated monthly instalments along with the contractual interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum with monthly rests, and 2% penal interest was to be charged in case of default. He admitted that the cheque was dishonoured with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’. He stated that the complainant had taken th
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act on cheque admission; security cheque liable if debt subsists; unclaimed notice deemed served; post-dishonour r....
Admission of cheque signatures triggers presumption of debt under NI Act ss.118/139, rebuttable only by accused evidence; security cheques attract s.138 liability if debt subsists; revisional jurisdi....
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....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, no reappreciation absent perversity; presumption of debt under NI Act holds post cheque admission unless robustly rebutted; security cheques attract ....
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....
Presumption under NI Act S.139 arises on cheque issuance admission; rebuttable by preponderance via evidence, not S.313 statement. Security cheques liable if debt unpaid; 'account closed' dishonour a....
Admission of cheque issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118(a), 139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if subsisting debt exists; revisional....
Admission of cheque triggers presumption under Sections 118(a),139 NI Act of enforceable debt; security cheque liable under Section 138 if subsisting liability exists; accused fails to rebut by prepo....
Admission of cheque triggers presumption of debt under NI Act Sections 118(a), 139; security cheques attract Section 138 if liability exists; rebuttal by preponderance needed, not mere denial; revisi....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers presumption of debt under NI Act; security cheque liable for existing liability; unlicensed moneylender's NI complaint maintainable; revisional court defers to c....
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
