A criminal case, whether at the trial or appellate stage, should not be decided against an accused in the absence of their counsel; if the accused is unrepresented, the court is legally obligated to appoint an amicus curiae to ensure a fair trial in accordance with constitutional principles.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 767 of 2024 Reserved on: 25.03.2026 Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 Prem Lata Bushahri ...Appellant Versus M/s Himachal Pradesh Com mercial Corporation ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the Appellant : Mr. Rajul Chauhan, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel.

For the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.

g__________________________________

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (3), Shimla District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter

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

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 before the learned Tria l Court against the accused for the commissioon of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'NI Act'). It was asserted that the complainant, Dinesh Nanda, is running a business in the name and style of Himachal Pradesh Commercial Corporation, 13, Ganj Bazar, Shimla, H.P. The complainant and the accused had various business transactions. The accused was liable to pay ₹5,12,210/- to the complainant vide Bill no. 4042 dated 25.04.2015. She paid ₹60,000/- to the complainant and issued various cheques to pay the remaining amount of ₹ 4,52,210/-. The cheque for ₹1,50,000, drawn on Punjab National Bank, H.P. Secretariat, Shimla, H.P., issued by the accused, was one of those cheques. The complainant deposited the cheque at his bank, and it was dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. The complainant issued a demand notice to the accused asking her to pay the amount within 15 days. Notice was duly served upon the accused, but she failed to pay the money. Hence, a complaint was filed before the lea.rned Trial Court against the accused for taking action in accordance with the law. H

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. Wheon the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to her for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his complaint.

5. The accused, in her statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. She stated that she did not know the complainant and had not issued any cheque in his favour. Himachal Pradesh Commercial Corporation is a money lender. The accused and her husband had borrowed money from it for which blank cheques were issued as security. She admitted her signature on the cheque. She claimed that she had kept blank signed cheques at home, which were handed over by her husband to Himachal Pradesh Commercial Corporation. She did not produce any evidence to prove her defence. .

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted her signature on the cheque. A cheque carries with it a presumption that it was iss ued for consideration to discharge debt/liability. Thoe accused failed to rebut the presumption. The plea taken by her that a blank cheque was handed over to Himachal Pradesh Commercial Corporation was not proved. A blank signed cheque would also give rise to a liability. The complainant was not proved to be a money lender. The complainant’s version was duly proved by the bill. The cheque was dishonoured with endorsement “insufficient funds”, and the notice was served upon the acc