IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Pronouncement: 16.04.2026 SHASHI PAL ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Garima Dixit, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1.

Ms. Dheerja, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

for respondent No.2.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.07.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, Lodhi has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that the complainant/respondent No.2 (hereinafter known as respondent No.2) is a resident village Fauji Colony, Tehsil Sultanpur of Lodhi, District Kapurthala. The petitioner/accused (hereinafter known as the petitioner) was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 46,000/- to the respondent No.2 and in order to discharge that liability, he issued a cheque bearing No.S/B No. 567351 of Rs. 46,000/- dated 08.11.2005 drawn on The Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank, Branch Sultanpur Lodhi in favour of the respondent No.2. The petitioner promised that whenever the cheque would be presented, it would be encashed. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 presented the said cheque for encashment but the same was returned back with the remarks "insufficient funds". Thereafter, the respondent No.2 served a registered notice dated 03.02.2006 as required under law requesting the accused to make the payment but the petitioner failed to make the payment. So under these circumstances the respondent No.2 was constrained to file the complaint.

3. After preliminary evidence, the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face Trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner appeared and was released on bail. Then a notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Based on the evidence led, the petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi vide judgment dated 27.10.2006 as under:-

Sections RI Fine In default of payment

138 of the NI Act RI for 06 months Rs.500/- RI for 15 days

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred which came to be dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide order dated

26.07.2007.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner contends that the judgments under challenge are based on mere conjectures and surmises and are not sustainable in law. The respondent No.2 has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent No.2 has failed to prove his case and the Courts have wrongly held that the respondent No.2 remained successful in proving the guilt of the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent No.2 has not proved the acknowledgment of the notice allegedly sent to the petitioner. This is also fatal to the case of the respondent No.2. The only memo Ex.P2 proved on record by the respondent No.2 pertains to Punjab National Bank, whereas the said cheque has been alleged to be dishonoured by the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sultanpur Lodhi. She, therefore contends that the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and the petitioner ought to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.

7. On the other hand, the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2 contends that the signatures on the cheque have been admitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it must be presumed that the said cheque was issued in favour of respondent No.2 towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability unless the said presumption