IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

237 Date of decision: 09.12.2025 Nand Kishore and another ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State Bank of India ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Ms. Samridhi Sareen, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

(Legal Aid Counsel).

Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate for the respondent(s)-Bank.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, in a complaint case bearing complaint file No.43 dated 12.01.2011 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of 01 month.

2. Challenge is also to the dismissal of the appeal vide judgment dated 21.07.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

3. At the very outset, counsel for the parties submit that so far as petitioner No.1 Nand Kishore is concerned, he has already undergone the entire sentence and has been released thereafter, hence, the present petition survives only with respect to petitioner No.2-Asha Rani, wife of Nand Kishore (petitioner No.1).

4. Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had been instituted by the respondent-State Bank of India. The petitioners, Nand Kishore and Asha Rani, had jointly availed a home loan of Rs. 3,40,000/- from the Bank and the necessary documents were executed in support thereof. A cheque No.012526 dated 13.12.2010 had been issued in discharge of the liability for a sum of Rs. 4,12,000/- drawn on the complainant bank. The said cheque was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds”, whereupon a legal notice was served on 15.12.2010. As the payment in question was not made, hence, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was instituted. The incriminating material was denied and even the liability to pay the amount was disputed and denied by them. Parties led their respective evidence.

5. On consideration of the respective evidence and arguments advanced by them, the Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda convicted the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of 01 year with a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of 01 month. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 21.07.2014, passed in Criminal Appeal No.56 dated 23.05.2012, and the judgment of conviction was upheld.

Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) contends that petitioner No.2 was only a co-borrower of the loan and the cheque towards discharge of liability was issued from the account of Nand Kishore. She contends that since petitioner No.2 was not an account holder, she could not have been held liable for the dishonour of the said cheque. Besides, the said main accused-cum-account holder has already undergone the complete sentence. She contends that even though the liability on account of the loan borrowed might be enforceable against petitioner No.2, being a co-borrower, however, as far as the criminal liability regarding the dishonour of the cheque is concerned, she could not have been criminally prosecuted for failure to honour the cheque on presentation since she was not the account holder.

7. Counsel for the respondent-Bank does not dispute that the account No.30402534239, of which the cheque in question had been drawn, was a savings bank account operated solely by Nand Kishore and that petitioner No.2-Asha Rani was neither