A cheque issued as part of a loan security arrangement matures for presentation upon non-payment of the underlying debt, and its dishonour attracts liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provided the statutory presumption of valid consideration is not successfully rebutted by the accused.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 1.8.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.46-Cr.A/10 of 2025, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.2.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in Complaint No. 323/3 of 2022, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 8.00 lakh to the complainant.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent/complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the competent court of law, stating therein that complainant/bank sanctioned/advanced a loan of Rs. 5.00 lakh to the petitioner-accused for construction of house for a period of ten years, which was to be paid in regular installments. Since accused committed default in repayment of the said loan, he with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing No.680703 dated 30.8.2022 amounting to Rs. 6,08,793/- in favour of the complainant, however aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured on account of “funds insufficient”. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite having received legal notice issued to him, complainant had no option but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 28.2.2025, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 1.8.2025. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below.

5. Vide order dated 30.1.2026, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below, subject to petitioner’s depositing 50% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with the trial Court, within six weeks, but fact remains that afore order never came to be complied with despite repeated opportunities.

6. On 24.3.2026, this Court granted last opportunity and specifically observed that in case needful is not done within stipulated time, respondent-complainant would be at liberty to get the judgment of learned trial Court executed in accordance with law. Besides above, petitioner was also directed to remain present in the court today, but fact remains that neither amount has been deposited nor petitioner has come present in person and as such, this Court has no option but to decide the petition on merit.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the judgment impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that cou