Once a cheque’s issuance and signature are admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise, mandating the accused to prove through the preponderance of probabilities that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , lays challenge to judgment dated 24.03.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.111-S/10 of 2024, titled as Sh. Pankaj Ranjan Vs. Sh. Ankur Joshi, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.935/2007, 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 one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/- to the respondent-complainant.

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, stating therein that accused borrowed a sum of ₹1,10,000/- from him in the month of June, 2007 in the presence of Roshan Sharma and Naveen Verma. Though accused had promised to return the borrowed money on or before 30.06.2007, however, he was unable to do so and as such, on 06.07.2007, with a view to discharge his legally enforceable liability, issued Cheque bearing No.115620, dated 06.07.2007, amounting to ₹1,10,000/- in favour of complainant, drawn at ICICI Bank, The Mall, Shimla. However, fact remains that aforesaid Cheque on its presentation to the Bank concerned, was dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. After receipt of aforesaid return memo, complainant served accused with legal notice dated 01.08.2007 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, Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 01.07.2024, 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.

Though, at the first instance, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., however, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.03.2025. 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.

Vide order dated 07.07.2025, 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 bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. Though aforesaid order was complied with, but thereafter matter was repeatedly adjourned, enabling petitioner to deposit the remaining amount, but in vain. As many as six opportunities came to be afforded to the petitioner to settle the matter with the complainant, but since balance amount has been not paid/deposited, this Court has no option but to decide the petition on its own merits.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material adduced on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgments, this Court sees no reason to agree with Mr. Atul G. Sood, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that Courts below have fallen in grave error while appreciating the evidence, rather this Court finds that both