IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 71 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.04.202.6 Decided on: 18 .05.2026 Rupesh Sharma f ...…. Petitioner Versus Murlidhar r …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For th e Petitioner : Mr B.L. Soni, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr Varun Chauhan, Advocate Rakesh Kainthla, Judge H The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.01.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were

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

upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter 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 Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in shtort, 'NI Act'). It was asserted that the complainant is the owner in possession of the fruit-bearing orchard situated at Village Jong Post Office, Katrain, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. The accused purchased the fruit from the complainant and issued a cheque of ₹3,50,000/- in the hcomplainant’s favour. The complainant presented the cheque to his bank on 02.04.2013, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘account closed’. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused asking him to pay the amount within 15 days. The accused received the notice on 03.05.2013, but failed to pay the amount. Hence, the 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 himself (CW-1) and R.K Sharma (CW-2).

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Cuode of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. He asserted that he had never carried out the fruit business and had not issued any cheque in the complainant’s favour. He had handed over the hcheque to Dalveer Thakur because he had money transactions gwith him. The accused opted to lead defence evidence but failed ito produce the evidence. Hence, the learned Trial Court closed the evidence by the order of the Court.

6. Learned trial Court held that the complainant’s statement that the accused had issued the cheque to him in discharge of the legal liability was acceptable. The cheque carries with it a presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act that it was issued for consideration to discharge debt/liability. The accused failed to rebut the presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement account closed, which also attracted the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to repay the amount to the complainant. All the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable funder Section 138 of the NI Act were duly satisfied; therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for five months and to pay a compensation of ₹4,75,000/- to the complainant.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed hby the learned trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu District, Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court)