IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 129 of 2015

Reserved on: 18.12.2025

Date of Decision: 01.01.2026

Sant Kumar ...Petitioner

Versus o

R.K. Puri & others ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

For the Petitioner : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

g The present revision is directed against the judgment

idated 31.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,

Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order or sentence dated 24.06.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi (learned Trial Court) were partly upheld. (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 revision are that the complainant filed a complaint again.st the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘NI’ Act). It w as asserted that the accused represented to the coomplainant that he was a government contractor and ha d taken various contracts. He requested the complainanrt to supply the grit and sand at the Malana project on a credit basis. The complainant supplied the material as per the requirements of the accused. The accused issued the cheque of ₹3,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Bhuntar Bazaar, to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking him to repay the amount within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The accused failed to repay the money despite the receipt of the valid notice of demand. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court against the accused for taking action as per the law.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a not.ice 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) and Gopal Singh (CW2) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had told the complainant that he was a Government contractor. He denied that the sand and grit were supplied at the Malana project. He stated that no material was supplied to him. He claimed that the cheque was issued by him as security to the complainant in August 2002 in the presence of Naveen Kaistha at Manali. He repeatedly asked the complainant to return the cheque, but the complainant evaded. He admitted that he had received a notice but claimed that a false notice was issued. He stated that there was no question of making any payment to the complainant because no material was supplied to him. He stated that he wanted to lead the defence evidence, however, he failed to produce any evidence, and the learned Trial Court closed his evidence vide order dated

16.04.2009. .

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the issuance of the cheque, and a presumption would arise that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The accused admitted that he had asked the complainant to supply the sand and grit stone. His plea that no material was supplied to him was not believable. The accused failed to reply to the legal notice of demand so issued by the complainant to him. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The service of the notice upon the haccused was duly established. Hence, the learned Trial Court gconvicted the