2025:HHC:21678 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.623 of 2023 Reserved on: 25.06.2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 Gauri Dutt ...Petitioner Versus Hira Singh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.L. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which, the judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2023 and order of sentence dated 25.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. P a g e | 2 2025:HHC:21678 same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant and the accused were known to each other. The accused approached the complainant in November 2015 and requested him to lend ₹5,00,000/- for the solemnization of the marriage. The complainant lent ₹4,90,000/- to the accused. The accused issued a post-dated cheque of ₹4,90,000/- drawn on the State Bank of India in discharge of his legal liability. The complainant requested the accused to return the money, but the accused failed to do so; hence, the complainant presented the cheque to his Bank on 17.02.2016. However, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused on 10.03.2016 asking him to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but the accused failed to pay the amount; hence, the P a g e | 3 2025:HHC:21678 complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per the law. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The complainant examined himself as CW1 to prove his case. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the case of the complainant. He stated that he had taken 200 grams of gold from the complainant for ₹6,00,000/-. He paid ₹3,90,000/- to the complainant. He had handed over a blank, signed cheque to the complainant as security. He admitted that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. He denied that he had received any notice from the complainant. He stated that he was liable to pay ₹2,10,000/- to the complainant. He examined himself (DW1) and Om Prakash (DW2). 6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque; therefore, a presumption would arise P a g e | 4 2025:HHC:21678 under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability for valuable consideration. The burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The plea taken by the accused that he had purchased the gold worth ₹6,00,000/- and had paid ₹3,90,000/- was not proved. The statement of Account produced by the complainant only proved the payment of ₹50,000/- much before the issuance of the cheque. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The notice was issued on the correct address and is deemed to have been served. All the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act were duly satisfied; hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half years, pay a compensation of ₹5,25,000/- and in default of payment of compensation to undergo additional simple imprisonment for three months. 7. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court concurred with P a g e | 5 2025:HHC:21678 the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the presumption under Sections 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act would arise that the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability for valuable consideration. The plea taken by the accused that he had purchased the gold worth ₹6,00,000/- and had returned ₹3,90,000/- was not proved. One deposit receipt of ₹50,000/- was proved, which was not sufficient to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The notice was deemed to be served upon the accused, and the accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of a valid notice of demand. There was no infirmity in the order of the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court; hence, the appeal was dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved from the judgments and order passed by learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material on record. It was duly proved that the cheque was given as a security. An amount of ₹4,90,000/- was wrongly filled by the complainant. No notice of demand was served upon the accused; therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and P a g e | 6 2025:HHC:21678 the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 9. I have heard Mr. R.L. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, and Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel for the respondent. 10. Mr. R.L. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material placed before them. The accused had successfully proved that an amount of ₹50,000/- was deposited by him in the account of the complainant. No explanation was provided by the complainant for the amount of ₹50,000/- deposited by the accused. The deposit probabilizes the defence of the accused that he had purchased the gold from the complainant and had paid ₹50,000/- for the repayment of the amount. The accused has to prove his defence on the balance of probability, and the deposit raises a probable defence. Learned Courts below erred in rejecting the defence; therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. P a g e | 7 2025:HHC:21678 11. Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the learned Courts below had rightly appreciated the material placed before them. The accused did not dispute his signatures on the cheque and learned Courts below had rightly raised the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act. The deposit of ₹50,000/-, much before the issuance of the cheque, does not show that the payment was made towards the amount mentioned in the cheque. This Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by learned Courts below while exercising the revisional jurisdiction; therefore, he prayed that the present revision be dismissed. 12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 13 It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed at page 207: - “10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent P a g e | 8 2025:HHC:21678 findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short “CrPC”) vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. 14. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, wherein it was observed: “13. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 Cr. P.C., which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court, is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept into such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where the scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set P a g e | 9 2025:HHC:21678 right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error, and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which, upon the face of it, bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with the law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much- advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.” 15. It was held in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 544: (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 37: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 651 that it is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the absence of any perversity. It was observed on page 169: P a g e | 10 2025:HHC:21678 “12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401 CrPC and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452: 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, this Court has laid down the following: (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5) “5. … In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting a miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court, nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to a gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. …” 13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19]. This Court held that the High Court, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or P a g e | 11 2025:HHC:21678 there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. The following has been laid down in para 14: (SCC p. 135) “14. … Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.” 14. In the above case, also conviction of the accused was recorded, and the High Court set aside [Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke v. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1753] the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views, and that too without any legal basis. 16. This position was reiterated in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 13, wherein it was observed at page 205: P a g e | 12 2025:HHC:21678 “16. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. 17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH [Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457], it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. The answer to the first question is therefore, in the negative.” 17. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. The accused admitted his signatures on the cheque, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and his statement on oath. It was laid down by this Court in Naresh Verma vs. Narinder Chauhan 2020(1) Shim LC 398 that where the accused had not disputed his signatures on the cheque, the Court has to presume that it was issued in discharge of legal liability and the burden would shift upon the accused to rebut the presumption. It was observed: - “8. Once signatures on the cheque are not disputed, the plea with regard to the cheque having not been issued towards discharge of lawful liability, rightly came to be rejected by learned Courts below. Reliance is placed upon Hiten P. Dalal v. Bartender Nath Bannerji, 2001 (6) SCC 16, wherein it has been held as under: P a g e | 13 2025:HHC:21678 "The words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when, upon the material before it, the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted......" 9. S.139 of the Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. 19. Similar is the judgment in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa 2019 (5) SCC 418 wherein it was held: “26. Applying the proposition of law as noted above, in the facts of the present case, it is clear that the signature on the cheque, having been admitted, a presumption shall be raised under Section 139 that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability.” 20. This position was reiterated in Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, (2021) 5 SCC 283: (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 25: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 555: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 75 wherein it was held at page 289: “14. Once the 2nd appellant had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the deed, the trial court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt. The trial court fell in error when it called upon the respondent complainant to explain the P a g e | 14 2025:HHC:21678 circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay. Such an approach of the trial court was directly in the teeth of the established legal position as discussed above, and amounts to a patent error of law.” 21. Similar is the judgment in APS Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers (2020) 12 SCC 724, wherein it was observed: - “7.2. What is emerging from the material on record is that the issuance of a cheque by the accused and the signature of the accused on the said cheque are not disputed by the accused. The accused has also not disputed that there were transactions between the parties. Even as per the statement of the accused, which was recorded at the time of the framing of the charge, he has admitted that some amount was due and payable. However, it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security, and the same has been misused by the complainant. However, nothing is on record that in the reply to the statutory notice, it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security. Be that as it may, however, it is required to be noted that earlier the accused issued cheques which came to be dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient funds” and thereafter a fresh consolidated cheque of ₹9,55,574 was given which has been returned unpaid on the ground of “STOP PAYMENT”. Therefore, the cheque in question was issued for the second time. Therefore, once the accused has admitted the issuance of a cheque which bears his signature, there is a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 139 of the NI Act. However, such a presumption is rebuttable in nature, and the accused is required to lead evidence to rebut such presumption. The accused was required to lead evidence that the entire amount due and payable to the complainant was paid. P a g e | 15 2025:HHC:21678 9. Coming back to the facts in the present case and considering the fact that the accused has admitted the issuance of the cheques and his signature on the cheque and that the cheque in question was issued for the second time after the earlier cheques were dishonoured and that even according to the accused some amount was due and payable, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. Of course, such presumption is rebuttable in nature. However, to rebut the presumption, the accused was required to lead evidence that the full amount due and payable to the complainant had been paid. In the present case, no such evidence has been led by the accused. The story put forward by the accused that the cheques were given by way of security is not believable in the absence of further evidence to rebut the presumption, and more particularly, the cheque in question was issued for the second time after the earlier cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, both the courts below have materially erred in not properly appreciating and considering the presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability as per Section 139 of the NI Act. It appears that both the learned trial court as well as the High Court have committed an error in shifting the burden upon the complainant to prove the debt or liability, without appreciating the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. As observed above, Section 139 of the Act is an example of reverse onus clause and therefore, once the issuance of the cheque has been admitted and even the signature on the cheque has been admitted, there is always a presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability and thereafter, it is for the accused to rebut such presumption by leading evidence.” 22. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Triyambak S. Hegde v. P a g e | 16 2025:HHC:21678 Sripad, (2022) 1 SCC 742: (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 512: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 788 as under at page 747: “12. From the facts arising in this case and the nature of the rival contentions, the record would disclose that the signature on the documents at Exts. P-6 and P-2 are not disputed. Ext. P-2 is the dishonoured cheque based on which the complaint was filed. From the evidence tendered before the JMFC, it is clear that the respondent has not disputed the signature on the cheque. If that be the position, as noted by the courts below, a presumption would arise under Section 139 in favour of the appellant who was the holder of the cheque. Section 139 of the NI Act reads as hereunder: “139. Presumption in favour of the holder. —It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.” 13. Insofar as the payment of the amount by the appellant in the context of the cheque having been signed by the respondent, the presumption for passing of the consideration would arise as provided under Section 118(a) of the NI Act, which reads as hereunder: “118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. — Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: (a) of consideration: that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.” 14. The above-noted provisions are explicit to the effect that such presumption would remain until the contrary is proved. The learned counsel for the appellant in that regard P a g e | 17 2025:HHC:21678 has relied on the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1284] wherein it is held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 516-17, para 9) “9. As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. The burden was on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. The trial court was not persuaded to rely on the interested testimony of DW 1 to rebut the presumption. The said finding was upheld [Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan v. K. Bhaskaran, Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 1995, order dated 23-10- 1998 (Ker)] by the High Court. It is not now open to the accused to contend differently on that aspect.” 15. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, referred to the decision of this Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [Basalingappa v. Mudibasap pa, (2019) 5 SCC 418: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 571] wherein it is held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 432-33, paras 25-26) “25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner: 25.1. Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. 25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption, and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of P a g e | 18 2025:HHC:21678 proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. 25.3. To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. 25.4. That it is not necessary for the accused to come into the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. 25.5. It is not necessary for the accused to come into the witness box to support his defence. 26. Applying the preposition of law as noted above, in the facts of the present case, it is clear that the signature on the cheque, having been admitted, a presumption shall be raised under Section 139 that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability. The question to be looked into is as to whether any probable defence was raised by the accused. In the cross-examination of PW 1, when the specific question was put that a cheque was issued in relation to a loan of Rs 25,000 taken by the accused, PW 1 said that he does not remember. PW 1 in his evidence admitted that he retired in 1997, on which date he received a monetary benefit of Rs 8 lakhs, which was encashed by the complainant. It was also brought in evidence that in the year 2010, the complainant entered into a sale agreement for which he paid an amount of Rs 4,50,000 to Balana Gouda towards sale consideration. Payment of Rs 4,50,000 being admitted in the year 2010 and further payment of loan of Rs 50,000 with regard to which Complaint No. 119 of 2012 was filed by the complainant, a copy of P a g e | 19 2025:HHC:21678 which complaint was also filed as Ext. D-2, there was a burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity. In the years 2010-2011, as per own case of the complainant, he made a payment of Rs 18 lakhs. During his cross-examination, when the financial capacity to pay Rs 6 lakhs to the accused was questioned, there was no satisfactory reply given by the complainant. The evidence on record, thus, is a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts.” 16. In that light, it is contended that the very materials produced by the appellant and the answers relating to lack of knowledge of property details by PW 1 in his cross- examination would indicate that the transaction is doubtful, and no evidence is tendered to indicate that the amount was paid. In such an event, it was not necessary for the respondent to tender rebuttal evidence, but the case put forth would be sufficient to indicate that the respondent has successfully rebutted the presumption. 17. On the position of law, the provisions referred to in Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, as also the enunciation of law as made by this Court, need no reiteration as there is no ambiguity whatsoever. In Basalingappav. Mudibasappa [Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 571] relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, though on facts the ultimate conclusion therein was against raising presumption, the facts and circumstances are entirely different as the transaction between the parties as claimed in the said case is peculiar to the facts of that case where the consideration claimed to have been paid did not find favour with the Court keeping in view the various transactions and extent of amount involved. However, the legal position relating to the presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act on signature being admitted has been reiterated. Hence, whether there is a rebuttal or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.” P a g e | 20 2025:HHC:21678 23. This position was reiterated in Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735: (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 726: (2022) 3 SCC (Civ) 442: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 302 wherein it was held at page 739: “8. It is true that this is a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 139 of the NI Act provides that the court shall presume that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This presumption, however, is expressly made subject to the position being proved to the contrary. In other words, it is open to the accused to establish that there is no consideration received. It is in the context of this provision that the theory of “probable defence” has grown. In an earlier judgment, in fact, which has also been adverted to in Basalingappa [Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 571], this Court notes that Section 139 of the NI Act is an example of reverse onus (see Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441: (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 477: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 184]). It is also true that this Court has found that the accused is not expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. It is accordingly that the principle has developed that all which the accused needs to establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable defence has been established is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case on the conspectus of evidence and circumstances that exist...” 24. Similar is the judgment in P. Rasiya v. Abdul Nazer, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1131, wherein it was observed: “As per Section 139 of the N.I. Act, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other P a g e | 21 2025:HHC:21678 liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by the Complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature and the issuance of the cheque are not disputed by the accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for any debt or other liability. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a statutory presumption and thereafter, once it is presumed that the cheque is issued in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which is in favour of the Complainant/holder of the cheque, in that case, it is for the accused to prove the contrary.” 25. This position was reiterated in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1275, wherein it was observed at page 161: 33. The NI Act provides for two presumptions: Section 118 and Section 139. Section 118 of the Act inter alia directs that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Section 139 of the Act stipulates that “unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for the discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability”. It will be seen that the “presumed fact” directly relates to one of the crucial ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 138. [The rules discussed hereinbelow are common to both the presumptions under Section 139 and Section 118 and are hence not repeated—reference to one can be taken as reference to another] 34. Section 139 of the NI Act, which takes the form of a “shall presume” clause, is illustrative of a presumption of law. Because Section 139 requires that the Court “shall presume” the fact stated therein, it is obligatory for the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. But this does not preclude the person against P a g e | 22 2025:HHC:21678 whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary, as is clear from the use of the phrase “unless the contrary is proved”. 35. The Court will necessarily presume that the cheque had been issued towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability in two circumstances. Firstly, when the drawer of the cheque admits issuance/execution of the cheque and secondly, in the event where the complainant proves that the cheque was issued/executed in his favour by the drawer. The circumstances set out above form the fact(s) which bring about the activation of the presumptive clause. [Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal [Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35]] 36. Recently, this Court has gone to the extent of holding that presumption takes effect even in a situation where the accused contends that a blank cheque leaf was voluntarily signed and handed over by him to the complainant. [Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 309: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40] ]. Therefore, the mere admission of the drawer's signature, without admitting the execution of the entire contents in the cheque, is now sufficient to trigger the presumption. 37. As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a cheque, was issued by the accused for discharge of debt, the presumptive device under Section 139 of the Act helps shifting the burden on the accused. The effect of the presumption, in that sense, is to transfer the evidential burden on the accused of proving that the cheque was not received by the Bank towards the discharge of any liability. Until this evidential burden is discharged by the accused, the presumed fact will have to be taken to be true, without expecting the complainant to do anything further. 38. John Henry Wigmore [John Henry Wigmore and the Rules of Evidence: The Hidden Origins of Modern Law] on Evidence states as follows: P a g e | 23 2025:HHC:21678 “The peculiar effect of the presumption of law is merely to invoke a rule of law compelling the Jury to reach the conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the opponent but if the opponent does offer evidence to the contrary (sufficient to satisfy the Judge's requirement of some evidence), the presumption ‘disappears as a rule of law and the case is in the Jury's hands free from any rule’.” 39. The standard of proof to discharge this evidential burden is not as heavy as that usually seen in situations where the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of an accused. The accused is not expected to prove the non- existence of the presumed fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused must meet the standard of “preponderance of probabilities”, similar to a defendant in a civil proceeding. [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441: (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 477: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 184: AIR 2010 SC 1898]] 26. Therefore, the Court has to start with the presumption that the cheque was issued for valuable consideration in discharge of the legal liability, and the burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumption. 27. The accused stated that he had purchased the gold worth ₹6,00,000/-. He paid ₹2,00,000/- in cash and handed over a blank cheque. He paid ₹2,00,000/- two months after the purchase. The accused had not issued any receipt. He deposited ₹50,000/- in the account of the complainant and obtained a receipt. He was to pay ₹1,50,000/-to the complainant. The complainant filled in the amount on the cheque and filed a false P a g e | 24 2025:HHC:21678 complaint against him. He stated in his cross-examination that he did not obtain any bill regarding the purchase of gold. He paid ₹4,50,000/- to the complainant; however, he did not issue any notice to the complainant. He did not maintain any record regarding the payment of ₹4,50,000/-. He volunteered to say that this payment was made in the presence of Baldev. He denied that ₹5,00,000/- were arranged by the complainant. He volunteered to say that ₹4,90,000/- was paid by the complainant. 28. The cross-examination of the accused makes his version highly improbable. He specifically admitted in his cross- examination by volunteering that ₹4,90,000/- was paid by the complainant to him. His plea regarding the purchase of the gold is not corroborated by any bill. His claim that he had paid ₹4,50,000/- is not supported by any record. He asserted that the payment was made in the presence of Baldev; however, Baldev was not examined to prove this defence. He stated that he had issued a blank cheque but admitted that no reply to the notice was sent by him. It is difficult to believe that a person would not take back the security cheque or at least send a reply to the notice, when he had paid a huge amount of ₹4,50,000/-. Further, he had no justification for handing over a blank signed cheque. An amount of P a g e | 25 2025:HHC:21678 ₹6,00,000/- was payable for the cost of the gold, out of which he claimed that he had paid ₹ 2,00,000/-. Thus, he was liable to pay ₹4,00,000/- to the complainant and could have easily issued a security cheque for ₹4,00,000/-. He admitted that cases under Section 138 of the NI Act were pending against him, which shows that he has knowledge regarding the consequences of handing over the cheque; thus, he cannot be expected to hand over the blank signed cheque to the complainant. All these circumstances made the defence taken by the accused highly doubtful that he had purchased the gold from the complainant and had issued a blank signed cheque regarding the payment of the gold. 29. A heavy reliance was placed upon the deposit of ₹50,000/- in the account of the complainant. The amount was deposited on 21.06.2014, whereas the cheque was issued in November 2015 and is dated 01.01.2016. It was not even suggested to the complainant that the accused had deposited ₹50,000/- towards the repayment of the gold purchased by him rather it was suggested that the accused had deposited ₹50,000/- in the account of the complainant’s wife which is not correct because as per Om Prakash (DW2), the amount of ₹50,000/- was deposited in the account of Heera Singh-complainant. It was rightly held by P a g e | 26 2025:HHC:21678 the learned Courts below that the payment of ₹50,000/- does not establish the plea taken by the accused that this amount was towards the cost of the gold purchased by the accused. 30. Therefore, the learned Courts below had rightly held that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption of consideration attached to the cheque. 31. The complainant stated that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Memo of dishonour (Ext. CW1/C) mentions that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The accused admitted while appearing as DW1 that his account did not have sufficient funds on the date of the presentation of the cheque. Thus, the correctness of the memo of dishonour is not disputed by the accused. 32. The complainant stated that he had issued a notice (Ext. CW1/D) to the accused asking him to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. This notice was sent to the same address, which was mentioned by the accused in his personal bond, notice of accusation and statement made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it was sent on the correct address and P a g e | 27 2025:HHC:21678 is deemed to have been served as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. 33. It was laid down in C.C. Allavi Haji vs. Pala Pelly Mohd. 2007(6) SCC 555 that the person who claims that he had not received the notice has to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the summons from the Court and in case of failure to do so, he cannot take the advantage of the fact that notice was not received by him. It was observed: “It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of the complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskaran’s case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section P a g e | 28 2025:HHC:21678 138 of the Act.” (Emphasis supplied) 34. Thus, it was duly proved that the accused had issued a cheque in discharge of the legal liability which cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ and the accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of the valid notice of demand; hence, he was rightly convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 35 Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo one and a half years' simple imprisonment. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 138 that the penal provision of Section 138 is deterrent in nature. It was observed at page 203: “6. The object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to infuse credibility into negotiable instruments, including cheques, and to encourage and promote the use of negotiable instruments, including cheques, in financial transactions. The penal provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is intended to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instruments such as cheques without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same.” 36. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be punished with two years' imprisonment. The learned Trial Court P a g e | 29 2025:HHC:21678 has not given any reason for imposing the sentence of one and a half years, except that the offence relates to a financial transaction. This was not sufficient to impose such a heavy sentence. Since no aggravating circumstances were brought on record, therefore, the sentence of nine months would be adequate, and the sentence is reduced to nine months' simple imprisonment from one and a half years. 37. Learned Trial Court imposed a compensation of ₹5,25,000/-. The sentence was imposed on 25.02.2023, whereas the cheque was issued on 01.01.2016 for ₹4,90,000/-. The complainant lost interest that he would have obtained by depositing the money in the Bank. He had to pay the litigation expenses for filing the complaint. He was entitled to be compensated for the same. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, (2021) 5 SCC 283: (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 25: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 555: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 75 that the Courts should uniformly levy a fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It was observed at page 291: - 19. As regards the claim of compensation raised on behalf of the respondent, we are conscious of the settled principles P a g e | 30 2025:HHC:21678 that the object of Chapter XVII of NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive. The provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for the dishonour of a cheque as well as civil liability for the realisation of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation, and unless there exist special circumstances, the courts should uniformly levy fines up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. [R. Vijayan v. Baby, (2012) 1 SCC 260, para 20: (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 79: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 520]” 38. The compensation of ₹86,000/- on an amount of ₹4,90,000/- is not excessive, and no interference is required with it. 39. Learned Trial Court ordered the imprisonment for three months in default of payment of compensation. It was submitted that no sentence of imprisonment in case of default of payment of compensation could have been awarded. This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas v. Sabu Joseph, (2010) 6 SCC 230: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 744: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 127: 2010 SCC OnLine SC 612, the Courts can impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation. It was observed at page 237: “20. Moving over to the question, whether a default sentence can be imposed on default of payment of compensation, this Court in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [(1988) 4 SCC 551: 1988 SCC (Cri) 984: AIR 1988 SC 2127] P a g e | 31 2025:HHC:21678 and in Balraj v. State of U.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 29: 1994 SCC (Cri) 823: AIR 1995 SC 1935], has held that it was open to all the courts in India to impose a sentence on default of payment of compensation under sub-section (3) of Section 357. In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [(1988) 4 SCC 551: 1988 SCC (Cri) 984: AIR 1988 SC 2127], this Court has noticed certain factors which are required to be taken into consideration while passing an order under the section: (SCC p. 558, para 11) “11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of the crime, the justness of the claim by the victim and the ability of the accused to pay. If there is more than one accused, they may be asked to pay on equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also vary depending on the acts of each accused. A reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary, by instalments, may also be given. The court may enforce the order by imposing a sentence in default.” 21. This position also finds support in R. v. Oliver John Huish [(1985) 7 Cri App R (S) 272]. The Lord Justice Croom Johnson, speaking for the Bench, has observed: “When compensation orders may be made, the most careful examination is required. Documents should be obtained, and evidence, either on affidavit or orally, should be given. The proceedings should, if necessary, be adjourned to arrive at the true state of the defendant's affairs. Very often, a compensation order is made and a very light sentence of imprisonment is imposed, because the court recognises that if the defendant is to have an opportunity of paying the compensation, he must be enabled to earn the money with which to do so. The P a g e | 32 2025:HHC:21678 result is therefore an extremely light sentence of imprisonment. If the compensation order turns out to be virtually worthless, the defendant has got off with a very light sentence of imprisonment as well as no order of compensation. In other words, generally speaking, he has got off with everything.” 22. The law laid down in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [(1988) 4 SCC 551: 1988 SCC (Cri) 984: AIR 1988 SC 2127] was reiterated by this Court in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan [(2002) 2 SCC 420: 2002 SCC (Cri) 344]. The Court observed: (SCC pp. 424-25, paras 5 & 10) “5. In the said decision, this Court reminded all concerned that it is well to remember the emphasis laid on the need for making liberal use of Section 357(3) of the Code. This was observed by reference to a decision of this Court in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [(1988) 4 SCC 551: 1988 SCC (Cri) 984: AIR 1988 SC 2127]. In the said decision, this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 558, para 11) ‘11. … The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of the crime, the justness of the claim by the victim and the ability of the accused to pay. If there is more than one accused, they may be asked to pay on equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also vary depending on the acts of each accused. A reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary, by instalments, may also be given. The court may enforce the order by imposing a sentence in default.’ (emphasis in original) *** 10. That apart, Section 431 of the Code has only prescribed that any money (other than fine) payable by virtue of an order made under the Code shall be recoverable ‘as if it were a fine’. Two modes of recovery of the fine have been indicated in Section P a g e | 33 2025:HHC:21678 421(1) of the Code. The proviso to the sub-section says that if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no court shall issue such warrant for the levy of the amount.” The Court further held: (Jagdeeshan case [(2002) 2 SCC 420: 2002 SCC (Cri) 344], SCC p. 425, para 11) “11. When this Court pronounced in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [(1988) 4 SCC 551: 1988 SCC (Cri) 984: AIR 1988 SC 2127] that a court may enforce an order to pay compensation ‘by imposing a sentence in default’ it is open to all courts in India to follow the said course. The said legal position would continue to hold good until it is overruled by a larger Bench of this Court. Hence learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala has committed an impropriety by expressing that the said legal direction of this Court should not be followed by the subordinate courts in Kerala. We express our disapproval of the course adopted by the said Judge in Rajendran v. Jose [(2001) 3 KLT 431]. It is unfortunate that when the Sessions Judge has correctly done a course in accordance with the discipline, the Single Judge of the High Court has incorrectly reversed it.” 23. In order to set at rest the divergent opinion expressed in Ahammedkutty case [(2009) 6 SCC 660 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 302], this Court in Vijayan v. Sadanandan K. [(2009) 6 SCC 652 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 296], after noticing the provision of Sections 421 and 431 CrPC, which dealt with mode of recovery of fine and Section 64 IPC, which empowered the courts to provide for a sentence of imprisonment on default of payment of fine, the Court stated: (Vijayan case [(2009) 6 SCC 652 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 296], SCC p. 658, para 24) “24. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. Since a decision on the question raised in this petition is still P a g e | 34 2025:HHC:21678 in a nebulous state, there appear to be two views as to whether a default sentence of imprisonment can be imposed in cases where compensation is awarded to the complainant under Section 357(3) CrPC. As pointed out by Mr Basant in Dilip S. Dahanukar case [(2007) 6 SCC 528 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 209], the distinction between a fine and compensation as understood under Section 357(1)(b) and Section 357(3) CrPC had been explained, but the question as to whether a default sentence clause could be made in respect of compensation payable under Section 357(3) CrPC, which is central to the decision in this case, had not been considered.” The Court further held: (Vijayan case [(2009) 6 SCC 652: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 296], SCC p. 659, paras 31-32) “31. The provisions of Sections 357(3) and 431 CrPC, when read with Section 64 IPC, empower the court, while making an order for payment of compensation, to also include a default sentence in case of non- payment of the same. 32. The observations made by this Court in Hari Singh case [(1988) 4 SCC 551: 1988 SCC (Cri) 984: AIR 1988 SC 2127] are as important today as they were when they were made and if, as submitted by Dr. Pillay, recourse can only be had to Section 421 CrPC for enforcing the same, the very object of sub-section (3) of Section 357 would be frustrated and the relief contemplated therein would be rendered somewhat illusory.” 24. In Shantilal v. State of M.P. [(2007) 11 SCC 243 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 1], it is stated that the sentence of imprisonment for default in payment of a fine or compensation is different from a normal sentence of imprisonment. The Court also delved into the factors to be taken into consideration while passing an order under Section 357(3) CrPC. This Court stated: (SCC pp. 255-56, para 31) “31. … The term of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine is not a sentence. It is a penalty P a g e | 35 2025:HHC:21678 which a person incurs on account of non-payment of a fine. The sentence is something which an offender must undergo unless it is set aside or remitted in part or in whole, either in appeal or in revision or other appropriate judicial proceedings, or ‘otherwise’. A term of imprisonment ordered in default of payment of a fine stands on a different footing. A person is required to undergo imprisonment either because he is unable to pay the amount of fine or refuses to pay such amount. He, therefore, can always avoid undergoing imprisonment in default of payment of the fine by paying such amount. It is, therefore, not only the power but the duty of the court to keep in view the nature of the offence, circumstances under which it was committed, the position of the offender and other relevant considerations before ordering the offender to suffer imprisonment in default of payment of a fine.” (emphasis in original) 25. In Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh [(1989) 1 SCC 405: 1989 SCC (Cri) 171: AIR 1989 SC 232], in the context of Section 125 CrPC observed that sentencing a person to jail is sometimes a mode of enforcement. In this regard, the Court stated: (SCC p. 409, para 6) “6. A distinction has to be drawn between a mode of enforcing recovery on the one hand and effecting actual recovery of the amount of monthly allowance which has fallen in arrears on the other. Sentencing a person to jail is a ‘mode of enforcement’. It is not a ‘mode of satisfaction’ of the liability. The liability can be satisfied only by making actual payment of the arrears. The whole purpose of sending to jail is to oblige a person liable to pay the monthly allowance who refuses to comply with the order without sufficient cause, to obey the order and to make the payment. The purpose of sending him to jail is not to wipe out the liability which he has refused to discharge. It should also be realised that a person P a g e | 36 2025:HHC:21678 ordered to pay a monthly allowance can be sent to jail only if he fails to pay the monthly allowance ‘without sufficient cause’ to comply with the order. It would indeed be strange to hold that a person who, without reasonable cause, refuses to comply with the order of the court to maintain his neglected wife or child would be absolved of his liability merely because he prefers to go to jail. A sentence of jail is no substitute for the recovery of the amount of monthly allowance which has fallen in arrears.” 26. From the above line of cases, it becomes very clear that a sentence of imprisonment can be granted for default in payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3) CrPC. The whole purpose of the provision is to accommodate the interests of the victims in the criminal justice system. Sometimes the situation becomes such that there is no purpose served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead, directing the accused to pay an amount of compensation to the victim or affected party can ensure the delivery of total justice. Therefore, this grant of compensation is sometimes in lieu of sending a person behind bars or in addition to a very light sentence of imprisonment. Hence, in default of payment of this compensation, there must be a just recourse. Not imposing a sentence of imprisonment would mean allowing the accused to get away without paying the compensation, and imposing another fine would be impractical, as it would mean imposing a fine upon another fine and therefore would not ensure proper enforcement of the order of compensation. While passing an order under Section 357(3), it is imperative for the courts to look at the ability and the capacity of the accused to pay the same amount as has been laid down by the cases above; otherwise, the very purpose of granting an order of compensation would stand defeated. P a g e | 37 2025:HHC:21678 40. This position was reiterated in R. Mohan v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar, (2012) 8 SCC 721: (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 585: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1013: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 486 wherein it was observed at page 729: 29. The idea behind directing the accused to pay compensation to the complainant is to give him immediate relief so as to alleviate his grievance. In terms of Section 357(3), compensation is awarded for the loss or injury suffered by the person due to the act of the accused for which he is sentenced. If merely an order directing compensation is passed, it would be totally ineffective. It could be an order without any deterrence or apprehension of immediate adverse consequences in case of its non- observance. The whole purpose of giving relief to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code would be frustrated if he is driven to take recourse to Section 421 of the Code. An order under Section 357(3) must have the potential to secure its observance. Deterrence can only be infused into the order by providing for a default sentence. If Section 421 of the Code puts compensation ordered to be paid by the court on a par with the fine so far as the mode of recovery is concerned, then there is no reason why the court cannot impose a sentence in default of payment of compensation as it can be done in case of default in payment of fine under Section 64 IPC. It is obvious that in view of this, in Vijayan [(2009) 6 SCC 652: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 296], this Court stated that the abovementioned provisions enabled the court to impose a sentence in default of payment of compensation and rejected the submission that the recourse can only be had to Section 421 of the Code for enforcing the order of compensation. Pertinently, it was made clear that observations made by this Court in Hari Singh [(1988) 4 SCC 551: 1988 SCC (Cri) 984] are as important today as they were when they were made. The conclusion, therefore, is that the order to pay compensation may be enforced by awarding a sentence in default. P a g e | 38 2025:HHC:21678 30. In view of the above, we find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Court in awarding a sentence in default of payment of compensation. The High Court was in error in setting aside the sentence imposed in default of payment of compensation. 41. Thus, there is no infirmity in imposing a sentence of imprisonment in case of default in the payment of compensation. 42. No other point was urged. 43. In view of the above, the present revision is partly allowed and the order of sentence of one and a half years imposed by the learned Trial Court is ordered to be reduced to nine months' simple imprisonment. Subject to this modification, the rest of the judgment and order are upheld. 44. Records of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 8th July, 2025 (Chander)