Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3468
THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J
CHHYAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Gramin Bank – Respondent
Cr. Revision No.722 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Virender K. Sharma
For the Respondents: K. B. Khajuria
Dishonour of a cheque issued as security attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if a legally enforceable debt exists, and the statutory presumption under Section 139 remains unless the accused provides a probable defense through evidence.
Headnote:The case involves an analysis of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent-bank sanctioned a term loan for Agri Allied activities to the accused, who issued a cheque for Rs. 1,70,000 to discharge his liability. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, and despite a legal notice, the accused failed to make payment. The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to two months' simple imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000, a decision subsequently affirmed by the first appellate court. The court addressed whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The court reasoned that while the presumption is rebuttable, the accused failed to lead any positive evidence or establish a probable defense, despite admitting the loan and the issuance of signed cheques in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The court further noted that cheques issued as security also attract liability under Section 138 if a debt exists. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(oral):
Sandeep Sharma, Judge
1. Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 12.09.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi (camp at Karsog) District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in case filing No.1251 of 2023(Reg. CIS No.105 of 2023), affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal complaint Registration No.142 of 2021, titled Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank VS. Chhyal Singh”, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) guilty of his having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- to the respondent-complainant-bank(hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’).
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other documents adduced on record by the respective parties, are that the respondent-complainant-bank instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that on the request of the accused, complainant-bank sanctioned term loan for Agri Allied activities of Rs. 1, 39,000/- to the accused, who with a view to discharge his lawful liability issued cheque bearing No.246064, dated 19.07.2021, amounting to Rs. 1, 70,000/-, drawn on Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Churag. However, fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused vide memo dated 20.07.2021. Immediately, after receipt of return memo, complainant served accused with legal notice dated 09.08.2021, calling upon the accused to make the payment good within stipulated time, but since he failed to do the needful within stipulated time, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, which subsequently, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of his having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, but same also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.09.2025. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Courts below.
4. Vide order dated 31.12.2025, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by Court below, subject to petitioner-accused furnishing personal bonds and depositing 25% of the compensation amount within a period of four weeks. However, fact remains that aforesaid order never came to be complied with. Repeatedly, matter was adjourned on the request of the petitioner, enabling him to deposit or settle the matter with the respondent-bank, but in vain and as such, this Court has no option, but to decide the petition on its own merit.
5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, this Court finds no illegality or i
