IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No. 647 of 2025 .

Decided on: 15.12.2025 P

________________________________________________

Jitender Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

Punjab National Bank ….Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for

reporting?o1

For the petitioner: Mr. Shivanshu Attri and Mr.

Kapil Sharma, Advocates, vice

Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

________________________________________________

Sushil Kukrejao, Judge (oral)

The instant petition has been filed by the

petitioner-accused under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”)

against judgment, dated 13.06.2025, passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, in

Criminal Appeal No. 10-D/X/2025, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 01.04.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 72-

III/2019, was affirmed.

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

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, can succinctly be summarized as under:

2(a). The accused-Jitender Kumar, in order to liquidate his loan liability towards the complainant-Bank (Punjab National Bank), issued cheque No. 710931, dated 03.05.2019, amounting to Rs.40,000/-, drawn on his account No. 2338000100078527, which was with the complainant- Bank. However, the aforesaid cheque, when presented for collection on 03.05.2019, was dishonoured for the reasons “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant-Bank issued a legal notice to the accused, which was duly served upon him on 08.05.2019, but he failed to make the payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated time. Resultantly, the complainant-Bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant-Bank.

4. Being dissatisfied, the accused/petitioner/convict preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed, and judgment of conviction, dated 01.04.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court, were affirmed. Hence, accused/petitioner/convict-Jitender Kumar preferred the instant petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, with a prayer that his petition be allowed and the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below be set-aside and he be acquitted.

5. During the pendency of the instant petition, an application (Cr.MP No. 5337 of 2025) under Section 528 read with Section 359(6) of BNSS read with Section 147 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner-accused, seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence by setting-

aside the judgment of conviction, dated 01.04.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Case No. 72-III/2019, and affirmed vide judgment dated 13.06.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 10-D/X/2025.

6. On 10.12.2025 the petitioner-accused was present before this Court and his statement was recorded and separately placed on the file. Today, statement of Shri Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant-Bank (respondent herein), has also been recorded and separately placed on the file.

7. In his statement, the petitioner/accused Jitender Kumar stated that on the complaint filed by the respondent/Bank under Section 138 of the Act, he was convicted by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 01.04.2025 and sentenced to undergo simple impr