IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 129 of 2024

Reserved on: 16.12.2025

Date of Decision: 01.01.2026

Ravinder Kumar ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & another ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Petitioner : Mr M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, with

o Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, Advocate.

For the RCespondents : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate

General, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Yuyutsu Thakur and Manish Thakur, Advocates, for respondent

No.2.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment

dated 18.01.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction 26.08.2023 and order of sentence dated 31.08.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall

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

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 revision are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Sefction 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the accused agreed to sell the land to the complainant. An agreement dated 17.08.2017 was executed between the parties. The complainant paid ₹2,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration of ₹2,50,000/-. The accused undertook to execute the sale deed or return double the amount of the advance received by him in case of failure to do so. The accused failed to execute the sale deed, and he issued a cheque for ₹2,50,000/- in favour of the complainant on 21.10.2020. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank, but it was returned with the endorsement ‘account blocked’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused asking him to repay the money within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The accused failed to repay the money. Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per the law.

3. The 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 wh.ich he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examinedf Chandan Bobby (CW-1), Tanuj Rathore (CW-2) and himself (CW-3).

5. The accused, in htis statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had agreed with the complainant to execute the sale deed. He admitted that the notice was served upon him. He claimed that he had issued a blank security cheque, and a false case was made against him. He examined himself (DW-1) to phrove his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque iwas not disputed, and a presumption arose that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The accused admitted that an agreement was executed between the parties. The sale deed was not executed, and the accused was liable to return the advance taken by him. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘account blocked’. The cheque issued as a security also attracts an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act on its dishonour. The notice was duly served upon the accused, and the accused failed to repay the amount; hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was senten.ced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of ₹4,00,000/- and undergo further simple imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine. It was ordered that out of the fine amount so realized ₹3,90,000/-be disbursed to the complainant as compensation, and ₹10,000/- be disbursed to the State.

7. Being a