IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 95 of 2014 Reserved on: 30.10.2025 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025.

Tarkeshwar Shah f...Appellant Versus Satinder Thakur and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellant : Mr Sanjay Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forests) (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.8.2008, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (learned Trial Court) were set-aside and the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

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

1881 (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 before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the accused had issued a cheque for ₹1.00 lac in favour of the complainant in discharge of his legal liability. The complainant presented the cheque to his Bank, but it was dishono ured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused requiring them to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused; however, they failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial court to take action as per law.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared before the Court, 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 BaHldev Singh Rana (CW1), Jitender Singh Negi (CW2) and himself (CW3) to prove his case.

5. The accused, in the ir statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admritted that they had issued a cheque of ₹1.00 lakh in favour of the complainant. They admitted that there was no money in the account on which the cheque was drawn. They admitted that the notice was received by them and they had sent a reply to it. They stated that they used to pay the money to the complainant from a different account. They mistakenly issued a cheque drawn on another account. They paid the money to the complainant by means of the cheques.

They examined S.S. Dawala (DW1) in their defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused had not disputed the issuance of the cheque. The plea taken by them that they had mistakenly issued the cheque drawn on another account was not plausible. The accused did not produce any evidence to show that they had paid the money to the complainant by means of the cheque as claimed by them. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but they failed to repay the amount; hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a compensation of ₹1,2u5,000/-.

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 (Forests), Shimla (learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court held that the complainant admitted that he had received the payments for the project through (Ex.DX5), (Ex.DX6) and (Ex.DX7). This probabilised the version of the acc