IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 2014 Reserved on: 17.12.2025 Decided on: 01.01.2026 M/s Studry Industries Ltd.

...…. Appellant Versus M/s Sunil Enterprises & another …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellant : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment idated 30.11.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kasauli, Court No.2, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same

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

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 complainant supplied the ACC sheets through various challans/invoices. Atn amount of ₹22,55,482.25 was due for the sheets supplied to the accused. The accused issued a cheque of ₹60,000/- to the complainant on 18.01.2011 towards the partial repayment of the amount. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank, but it was dishonoured with han endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking him to repay the amount, but he failed to do so. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused as per the law.

3. 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 Vijay Prabhakar (CW-1)

and Abinav Abrol (CW-2) to prove its complaint.

5. The accused, Sunil Abrol, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. He stated that no transaction took place between him and the complainant after 2006. He examined Pardeep Kumar (DW-1), Narender Pual Singh (DW-2) and himself (DW-3).

6. Leaorned Trial Court held that the accused admitted his signCature on the cheque; therefore, a presumption would arise that the cheque was issued in favour of the complainant for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The cheque was issued to discharge the time-barred debt, which is not a legally enforceable debt/liability, and the accused cannot be held liable for its dishonour; hence, the complaint was dismissed.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the material placed before it. The accused admitted the issuance of the cheque and his signature on it. The accused had also attested the cuttings made in the body of the cheque, which falsifies the plea taken by the accused that a blank cheque was issued. The cheque book was issued in August 2006, which falsifies the plea of the accused that tfhe cheque was issued in June 2006. The accused failed to produce the balance-sheet, account books and ledgers maintained in the ordinary course of the business to prove his plea that the cheque was issued to discharge time-barred debt, and the learned Trial Court erred in accepting this plea. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the