A cheque issued as security for a loan matures for presentation upon non-payment of the debt, and its dishonour attracts criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provided the statutory presumption of liability remains unrebutted by the accused.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , lays challenge to judgment dated 02.05.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2023, titled as Baldev Singh Vs. Bhagat Singh, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.418/19/14, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, “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 two months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent-complainant.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that having taken note of his friendly relations with accused, he in the month of May, 2014 and 2015, gave loan of ₹2,00,000/- to the accused. Though accused assured complainant to repay the amount within a period of two months, but since aforesaid amount was not paid, accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque bearing No.084777 dated 19.08.2014 for sum of ₹2,00,000/- in favour of complainant towards the discharge of lawful liability, but fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation to the Bank concerned, was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. After receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused with a legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good well within stipulated time. However, since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 12.05.2023, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove.

4. Though, at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 02.05.2024. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the Courts below.

5. Vide order dated 21.08.2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Court below, subject to petitioner/accused depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. Though aforesaid order was complied with, but thereafter, matter was repeatedly adjourned at the request of learned counsel representing the petitioner, enabling him to deposit the remaining amount, but fact remains that neither petitioner came present before this Court despite there being order, nor paid the remaining amount and as such, learned counsel repr