IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrP.R No.29 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.4.2026 _____________________________________________________________________

Sanjeev Kumar H ……...Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Stharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporrting?

For the Petitioner: uMr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Sharma & Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocates.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 18.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, gSessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2025, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2024, in Criminal Case No.89 of 2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (in short “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.8,30,000/-

to the respondent-complainant (in short “complainant.”).

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that complainant instituted a complaint uonder Section 138 of the Act before the competent court of law, stating therein that accused, with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque (Ext.CW1/B) bearing No.310386 dated 26.06.2018 amuounting to Rs.8,15,636/- in favour of the complainant, hoowever, fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since accused failed to hmake 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.

2. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 31.12.2024, held the 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.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the a.foresaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Poradesh, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.11.2025. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after settuing-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recordedo by the court below.

4. Though vide order dated 09.01.2026, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below, subject to the accused dephositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount within six weeks, but fact remains that aforesaid order was never complied with. On 24.03.2026, this Court granted last two opportunity of two weeks to the accused to comply with order dated 09.01.2026, but the same was not complied with. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the accused, fairly states that since accused is not coming forward to impart instructions or has not complied with order dated 09.01.2026, this Court may proceed to decide the petition on its own merits.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the p.arties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the judgment impugned in the instant proce