IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 240 CRR-2605-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 KARAN SINGH …Petitioner/Revisionist V/S M/s. VED PARKASH PUSHPENDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Bhanu Chaudhary, Advocate for the revisionist. None for the respondents. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Revisionist assails judgment dated 18.08.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in criminal appeal No. 246-CRA/CIS No. 332-2024, vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2024 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was upheld. 2. M/s. Ved Parkash Pushpender Kumar, through its proprietor Kuldeep Singh filed a complaint against revisionist-Karan Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) alleging that Kuldeep Singh borrowed ₹21,40,000/- from him and in discharge of his legally enforceable liability, issued cheque No. 380309 dated 01.10.2018 for ₹21,00,000/- for repayment of the loan amount, from his account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vidya Devi Jindal AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2605-2025 (O&M) -2- School, Hisar Branch, assuring that the same would be honoured on presentation. The cheque was presented by the complainant in his account in HDFC Bank Ltd., Jindal Chowk Branch, Hisar on 03.10.2018 for collection but the same was dishonoured with the remarks “Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 04.10.2018. Thereafter, legal notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.10.2018, who failed to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of legal notice, whereupon the complaint was filed. 3. Preliminary evidence was led in the complaint and revisionist was summoned to face trial. He moved an application under Section 145(2) of the Act for cross-examination of the complainant, which was allowed. Notice of accusation was served upon revisionist for having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Thereafter, statement of revisionist under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. No evidence was led in defence. 4. After hearing the complainant and counsel for the revisionist, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar held revisionist guilty holding that the cheque in question was issued by him in favour of the complainant, in discharge of his legally enforceable debt/liability and revisionist failed to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the complainant. His defence was not found tenable and conviction under Section 138 of the Act was recorded. After hearing him on the quantum, revisionist was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of ₹32,10,000/- i.e. 1.5 the cheque amount, to the complainant under Section 143(1) (proviso) of the Act AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2605-2025 (O&M) -3- read with Section 395(1)(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 within a period of one month from the date of passing of the judgment. Compensation amount, if not paid in time, was ordered to be recovered as per provisions of Sections 461/471 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 5. Aggrieved with the conviction and order on quantum of sentence, revisionist filed an appeal in the Appellate Court. In the appeal, vide order dated 07.09.2024, he was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount payable to the complainant. Revisionist absented from the Appellate Court on 17.12.2024 compelling the Court to issue warrants of arrest against him after cancelling his bail. Revisionist then approached this Court vide CRM-M- 44006-2025 for quashing order dated 17.12.2024. The petition filed by him was disposed of on 18.08.2025, with a direction to the Appellate Court to grant interim bail to the revisionist subject to his depositing remaining amount on or before 15.09.2025. He was ordered to surrender on or before the said date i.e. 15.09.2025. 6. The day, order was passed on 18.08.2025, the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissed the appeal on merits with a direction to the trial Court to enforce the order of sentence dated 09.08.2024. 7. The revision petition was then filed in this Court on 08.10.2025. Notice thereof was directed to the respondent, which was received back with the report of refusal. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2605-2025 (O&M) -4- 8. The only argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that judgment dated 18.08.2025 of learned Appellate Court was arbitrary, as the same was delivered in petitioner’s absence without giving him an opportunity of hearing. It is urged that the Court ought to have appointed an amicus curiae on behalf of the revisionist and only then, it could proceed further in the matter. 9. A similar issue came up before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Christopher Raj Vs. K. Vijayakumar 2019(3) RCR(Criminal) 596. In that case, the appellant-accused was acquitted under Section 138 of the Act by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. The complainant preferred an appeal before the High Court. There was no representation on behalf of appellant-accused in the appeal. The judgment of the trial Court was set aside and appellant-accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “9. Admittedly, the appellant-accused did not appear in the criminal appeal before the High Court. When the accused has not entered appearance in the High Court, in our view, the High Court should have issued second notice to the appellant-accused or the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint an advocate or the High Court could have taken the assistance of amicus curiae. When the accused was not represented, without appointing any counsel as amicus curiae to defend the accused, the High Court ought not to have decided the criminal appeal on merits; more so, AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2605-2025 (O&M) -5- when the appellant-accused had the benefit of the acquittal. The High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without affording any opportunity to the appellant-accused or by appointing an amicus curiae to argue the matter on his behalf. 10. In the result, the impugned orders of the High Court in Crl.A. (MD) No. 608 of 2007 dated 06.07.2018 and 23.06.2018 are set aside and these appeals are allowed and the Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 608 of 2007 shall stand restored. The matter is remitted to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to consider the matter afresh. The appellant shall appear before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 26.08.2019. The High Court shall issue notice to the respondent-complainant viz. K. Vijayakumar informing him about the date of hearing.” 10. The order dismissing the appeal filed by revisionist was passed in his absence, without giving him an opportunity of being heard. The proper course for the Appellate Court was to have made a reference to the District Legal Services Authority, to appoint a legal aid counsel or the Court could itself take assistance of an Amicus Curiae. The judgment dated 18.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge affirming the order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar dated 09.08.2024 convicting the revisionist under Section 138 of the Act could not have been passed in absentia, without affording a hearing to the revisionist. On this sole ground, order dated AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2605-2025 (O&M) -6- 18.08.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar passed in appeal No. 246-CRA/CIS No. 332-2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar to decide the appeal afresh after providing a hearing to the revisionist. 11. An application under Section 430 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed, praying for suspension of sentence of the revisionist, during pendency of the revision petition. Since revisionist is not in custody, there is no question of suspending his sentence. 12. Revisionist is directed to surrender before the District Jail, Hisar forthwith and move appropriate application before the Appellate Court. 13. Petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 14. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JULY 28, 2026 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document