IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 646 of 2024 Reserved on: 17.6.2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025.

Het Ram Chauhan f...Appellant Versus Rajender Prasad Sonkar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Appellant : Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sipahiya, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.3.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 30.7.2022 and order of sentence dated 6.8.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set-aside and the appeal filed by the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was allowed. (Parties shall

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

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 rHise to the present appeal 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 Act (NI Act). It was asserted that Het Ram Chauhan and Sons is a sole proprietorship of Het Ram Chauhan. It is engaged in the business of purchasing fruits and vegetables. The accused purchased apples worth ₹38,12,846/- from the complai nant on a credit basis. He paid ₹22,65,457/- leaving the balance of ₹15,53,389/-. He issued a cheque of ₹5.00 lacs, drawn on HDFC Bank. The complainant presented the cheque to his Bank, but it was returned with an endorsement ‘Instrument out of date/stale’. The complainant issued a notice to the accused asking him to pay the money within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but the accused failed to pay the amount, hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court to take action as per the law.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, 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 himself (CW1) to prove his case.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. He stated that he and the complainant never had any business transactions with each other. Initially, he stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence; however, no evidence was produced despite many opportunities; hence, the evidence was closed by the order of the Court.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed in the cross-examination; therefore, a presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would arise that the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability, and the burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused failed to rebut the presumption; yherefore, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 months and pay compensation of ₹5,60,000/-.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court held that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of ‘Instrument out dated/stale’, which does not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. Lea rned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused; therefore, the appeal filed by the accused was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.