Upon issuance and signature of a cheque, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the onus to the accused to prove absence of debt; a security cheque is enforceable if the underlying debt is unpaid upon maturity.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 29.10.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.05/2024 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.7.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in complaint No. 7-I-2021 (CIS Regn No. 29 of 2021), 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 three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000 to the complainant. Accused was also directed to deposit Rs 10,000/- as fine before the State Exchequer, failing which, he was to undergo additional one month simple imprisonment.

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, alleging therein that accused on account of his acquaintance approached her with a request to advance loan to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- for his personal and domestic needs. Complainant alleged that aforesaid amount was paid to the accused, who with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque bearing No.702883 dated 7.12.2020, amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-, in favour of the complainant, however cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured with remarks “funds insufficient” vide memo dated 24.12.2020. Immediately, after receipt of aforesaid memo, complainant served legal notice dated 11.1.2021 upon the accused, thereby calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated time, but in vain, as such, 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 31.7.2023, 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 29.10.2024. 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 7.1.2025, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below, subject to petitioner’s depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within four weeks, but fact remains that afore order never came to be complied with. Perusal of court file reveals that matter was repeatedly adjourned on the request of the petitioner, enabling him to settle the matter with the complainant or to comply with order passed by this Court, but in vain.

6. During proceed