IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 157 of 2023 Date of Decision: 07th January, 2025. Mohammed Raffi .....petitioner Versus HPMFDC …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: None for the petitioner For the respondent: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions, Shimla District Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 26-S/10 of 2021 titled as Mohammad Raffi vs. HPMFDC, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla District Shimla H.P. in criminal Complainat No. 306-3 of 2018/15 for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been upheld. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Heard counsel for the respondent. Perused the the record. 3. Admittedly in the case at hand, the petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant/respondent-Corporation. The loan had been borrowed for running a village utility store. The loan had to be repaid in five years in 60 equal monthly installments alongwith interest. The said fact has not been disputed by the petitioner/accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. 4. The loan statement has been proved on record by one Sh. C.L. Sharma, who had appeared as CW-1. The loan account statement has been proved on record as Exhibit CW-1/G. 5. The cheque in the case at hand is Exhibit CW- 1/B. On presentation, it was returned as unpaid due to “insufficient funds” vide memo Exhibit CW-1/D dated 13.08.2015. 6. Subsequent thereto, a legal notice Exhibit CW- 1/E was issued by the complainant/respondent-Corporation through registered post on 02.09.2015. Postal receipt thereof is Exhibit CW-1/F. 7. The legal notice was sent on the same address as mentioned in the complaint. Hence, it is proved that the 3 notice was duly served on the petitioner/accused. Despite receipt of the notice, accused/petitioner did not respond. As a consequence whereof, complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed on 28.09.2015. 8. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that all codal formalities as required under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act have been complied with in the case at hand. No fault/illegality can be found in the same and hence, to this extent, the judgments passed by the courts below call for no interference. 9. The petitioner/accused admits issuance of the dishonored cheque in the case at hand i.e. Exhibit CW-1/B. Signatures whereupon are admitted, however, it is contended that the same had been issued as a security cheque . As per the petitioner, the complainant/respondent-Corporation had taken a blank signed cheque from the accused for keeping it as a security. 10. Insofar as the plea of the petitioner/accused having issued a blank signed cheque as security in the case at hand is concerned, suffice it to state that the liability of the accused has been assessed on record with respect to admitted loan taken by the petitioner/accused. In terms of 4 provisions of Section 20 of the N.I. Act, where a person signs and delivers an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives authority to the holder thereof to make a complete negotiable instrument as the case may be. In such an event, the present who has signed the cheque, shall be liable upon such instruments in the capacity in which he signed the same to any holder in due course. 11. Other than the aforesaid, the petitioner/accused had liberty to make payment of the cheque amount in the case at hand on the first date of hearing of the present complaint In view of the aforesaid, I see no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the courts below. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous, applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 7th January, 2025 (tarun)