2026:HHC:24044 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A.(A-SB)-10 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.06.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Tikesh Kumar ……...Appellant Versus Sh. Jagdish Chand …....Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Jiya Lal, Advocate, vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 419 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Complaint No.36- III/19, Regd. No.158/2019, whereby Court concerned dismissed the complaint of the complainant being premature. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that complainant instituted complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the Act’) in the Court of learned Additional 2026:HHC:24044 2 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, alleging therein that Cheque bearing No.472366 dated 17.01.2019, amounting to 2,00,000/- of State Bank of India, Branch Degree College Mandi, H.P., ₹ having been issued by the accused to the complainant towards discharge of lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Though immediately after receipt of return memo, complainant served accused with legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated time, but since needful was not done in terms of mandate of the legal notice, complainant instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, which subsequently on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record dismissed the complaint being premature. In the afore background, complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of accused, after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 3. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned trial Court, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. 2026:HHC:24044 3 4. Bare perusal of complaint itself suggests that cause of action, if any, arose when accused failed to pay the amount within 15 days of receipt of legal notice, however, there is nothing in the complaint to establish that notice dated 07.02.2019 was served upon the accused within 4-5 days of its dispatch through registered post. Interestingly, in the instant case, complainant sent legal notice dated 07.02.2019 to the accused, but thereafter, within 4-5 days, proceeded to file complaint on the presumption that the same stands served upon accused. However, no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record with regard to service of legal notice upon accused. Neither complainant placed on record online/digital track record of the consignment, i.e. legal notice, to prove the exact date when accused received demand notice issued by the complainant, nor he examined postal authorities to prove that as to when the demand notice was received by the accused. Though in Para No.8 of complaint, there is specific mention that cause of action arose when the accused failed to pay the amount within 15 days, but no cogent material has been placed on record to prove aforesaid assertion. 5. To prove service, if any, upon accused, complainant ought to have examined postal authorities, who would have stated that notices are usually delivered in the area of the accused within 4-5 days of its dispatch. Thereafter, complaint can be filed either after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and if there is no proof of service, then complaint can be filed after expiry of 45 days from the date of issue of legal 2026:HHC:24044 4 notice, 30 days being deemed period for service and 15 days for the accused to make payment. While issuing notice, complainant is required to give at least 15 days time to accused to make the payment. In case, legal notice served within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of return memo, is proved to be served upon accused, complainant can proceed to file complaint immediately after expiry of 15 days, as mentioned in the legal notice. However, in case there is nothing to prove service of demand notice issued to the accused, there can be presumption of service, but after expiry of 30 days from the date of issuance of notice and thereafter, further 15 days’ time is required to be given to the accused to make the payment, meaning thereby that where there is no proof of date of service of legal notice upon the accused, complaint can be filed after 45 days only. 6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, legal notice was dispatched on 07.02.2019 and thereafter, complainant, without adducing on record convincing evidence with regard to service of legal notice upon accused, proceeded to file complaint after expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of legal notice, which could not have been entertained. Hence, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and as such, same does not call for interference. 2026:HHC:24044 5 7. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgment dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned trial Court and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. (Sandeep Sharma), June 22, 2026 Judge (Rajeev Raturi)