IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 296 of 2014

Reserved on: 21.11.2025

Date of Decision: 16.12.2025

Laxman Dass & others ....Appellants

Versus

Roop Chand ....Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the appellants : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal,

Advocate.

For the Respondent : Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 15.07.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla Camp at Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jubbal, (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (The 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

________________

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, ‘NI Act’). It was asserted that the parties had a good relationship with each other. The accused issued a cheque of ₹3,50,000/- in favour of the complainant to discharge his long-standing liabilities. The complainant presentoed the cheque to H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Jubbal, Dist rict Shimla, H.P., however, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused asking him to repay the amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice.C The accused sent a reply stating that nothing was payable to the complainant as the debt was barred by limitation. Hence, a complaint was filed before the Court for taking action against the accused as per the law.

H3. 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 himself (CW-1) and Inder Singh Mokta (CW-2) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded un.der Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied that he had borrowed a sum of ₹3,50,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque to discharge his liability. He stated that he had handed over a blank cheque to the complainant in 2002. He had sent a reply to the legal notice. He had made the payment to thre complainant, and nothing remained payable. He examined Roop Chand (DW-1) and Ravi Sehra (DW-2)

to prove his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed, and a presumption arose under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the liability. The plea taken by the accused that he had repaid the amount was not proved. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The notice was served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount; hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay a compensation of ₹3,50,000/-.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and orde.r passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla Camp at Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court held that the comp lainant asserted in paragraph 2 of the complaint that the accrused was in arrears of long-standing liability and had issued the cheque to discharge the liability. He mentioned in the notice that the accused had borrowed ₹3,50,000