IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 2017 of 2025.

Reserved on: 08.08.2025.

Date of Decision: 22.08.2025.

Bharat Sharma ...Applicant/ appellant Versus o Beli Ram ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the PetCitioner : Ms. Ruchika Khachi and Lalita Devi, Advocates.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge gThe applicant/ appellant has filed the present application for seeking Special Leave to appeal against the judgment dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, HP (learned Trial Court). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

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

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant presented a complaint against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant advanced ₹2,25,000/- to the accused in December 2019. The accused promised to repay the amount on or befoure 10.02.2020. He issued a cheque of ₹1,25,000/- draown on Punjab National Bank, Parag Solan, District SoClan, to discharge part of his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, i.e. State Bank of India, for its realisation. The complainant’s bank sent the cheque to the bank of the accused; however, the bank of the accused dishonoured Hthe cheque with the endorsement ‘Funds InsufÏcient’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused on 18.03.2020 at the correct address. The notice was served upon the accused, but he failed to pay the amount; hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per law.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufÏcient 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 himseHlf (CW-1) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his stateoment recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, stated that the com plainant had advanced a loan to Jagdish at the instance ofr the accused, and the accused issued his cheque to secure the loan. He denied the rest of the complainant’s case. He stated that the complainant had misused the cheque issued by him.

6. hLearned Trial Court held that the complainant did not gmention the date, time and month of lending the amount. He iclaimed that he had not advanced a loan to any person; however, the copies of the complaint filed in the case titled ‘Bharat Sharma vs. Radha Krishan’ showed that he had advanced ₹2,25,000/- to Radha Krishan. The complainant stated that he was earning ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 60,000/- per month, and his expenditure was ₹20,000/- per month. Therefore, his financial capacity was doubtful. The complainant had taken the loan from the bank and had defaulted on the repayment of the loan. Hence, his plea that he had advanced money to the accused was highly suspect. The complainant had not executed any document at the time of advancement of the loan, which is highly suspicious. All these circumstances made the complainant’s version highly doubtful; hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal. It has been asserted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence. The accused admitted the issuance of the cheque, and the burden was upon him to prove that the cheque was not issued in the discharge of the legal liability. The complainant failed to prove