IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 356 of 2026 Reserved on: 22.06.2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 Sanjay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Narayan Singh ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.06.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2024 1. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2026:HHC:28410 and order of sentence dated 20.09.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N I Act). It was asserted that the parties were well known to each other. The accused required money in October 2016 for the construction of his house. He borrowed ₹ 6,00,000/- from the complainant and promised to return the money shortly. He issued a cheque of ₹6,00,000/- drawn on the State Bank of Patiala, branch Patlikuhal, District Kullu, H.P., to return the money. The complainant presented the cheque at his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused asking him to repay the money within 15 days of its receipt. The legal notice was duly served upon the accused, but the accused failed to 3 2026:HHC:28410 repay the money. Hence, the complaint was filed to take action against the accused. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N I Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his complaint. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), denied the complainant's case in its entirety. He claimed that he had issued a cheque in favour of Sesh Ram, a relative of the complainant. The complainant misused the cheque issued by the accused. However, he did not produce any evidence to prove his defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed. The plea taken by the accused that he had issued a cheque in favour of Sesh Ram was denied by the complainant in his cross-examination. The accused did not lead any evidence to prove the plea taken by him. Hence, 4 2026:HHC:28410 he had failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of insufficient funds. The notice was duly served upon the accused, and an acknowledgement was received bearing the signatures of the accused. The accused had also admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC that he had received the notice. The accused failed to repay the money to the complainant despite the receipt of the notice of demand. All the ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act were duly satisfied. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 months and pay a compensation of ₹8,50,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). The Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that issuance of the cheque was not disputed, and a presumption arose that the cheque was issued for 5 2026:HHC:28410 consideration to discharge the debt/liability. The plea taken by the accused that he had issued the cheque in favour of Sesh Ram was not proved by any material on record. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, the notice was duly served upon the accused, and the accused failed to repay the money despite the receipt of a valid notice of demand. There was no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material on record. The plea taken by the accused that the cheque was issued in favour of Sesh Ram and the complainant had misused it was highly probable. The complaint was barred by limitation, and the service of notice was not proved. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside 9. Mr Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Courts below 6 2026:HHC:28410 erred in appreciating the material on record. The plea taken by the accused that the cheque was issued to Sesh Ram and the complainant had misused it was highly probable. The notice was not served upon the accused, and the findings recorded by the learned Courts below to this effect are not correct. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 10. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records. carefully. 11. 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 a 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 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 7 2026:HHC:28410 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 that 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. 12. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, wherein it was observed at page 695: “14. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 CrPC, 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 regularities 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 in such proceedings. 15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460: (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: (SCC p. 475, paras 12-13) “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 right a patent defect or 8 2026:HHC:28410 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 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 the framing of the charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC.” 13. 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 9 2026:HHC:28410 reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the absence of any perversity. It was observed at page 169: “12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401 CrPC and the grounds for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In 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 to satisfy 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 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 amount to a gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation in concluding 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 10 2026:HHC:28410 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 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. 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: 11 2026:HHC:28410 “16. It is well settled that in the 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, (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.” 15. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. The accused asserted that he had issued a cheque in favour of Sesh Ram, which was misused by the complainant. Thus, the issues of the cheque and the signatures were not disputed. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in APS Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers (2020) 12 SCC 724, that when the issuance of a cheque and signature on the cheque are not disputed, a presumption would arise that the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability. It was observed: - “9. Coming back to the facts in the present case and because 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 12 2026:HHC:28410 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 a presumption is rebuttable. 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 a 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.” 17. A similar view was taken in N. Vijay Kumar v. Vishwanath Rao N., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 873, wherein it was held as under: “6. Section 118 (a) assumes that every negotiable instrument is made or drawn for consideration, while Section 139 creates a presumption that the holder of a 13 2026:HHC:28410 cheque has received the cheque in discharge of a debt or liability. Presumptions under both are rebuttable, meaning they can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defence.” 18. This position was reiterated in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, wherein it was observed: “ONCE EXECUTION OF A CHEQUE IS ADMITTED, PRESUMPTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 118 AND 139 OF THE NI ACT ARISE 15. In the present case, the cheque in question has admittedly been signed by the Respondent No. 1- Accused. This Court is of the view that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the holder of the cheque received the said cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability arises against the accused. It is pertinent to mention that observations to the contrary by a two-Judge Bench in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54, have been set aside by a three-Judge Bench in Rangappa (supra). 16. This Court is further of the view that by creating this presumption, the law reinforces the reliability of cheques as a mode of payment in commercial transactions. 17. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable. However, the initial onus of proving that the cheque is not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused/drawer of the cheque [See: Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197]. 14 2026:HHC:28410 19. Therefore, the Court has to start with the presumption that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. 20. The complainant admitted in his cross- examination that Sesh Ram was his uncle, but he denied that Sesh Ram had obtained a blank cheque as security from the accused, and the complainant had misused the cheque. The learned Court below had rightly held that a denied suggestion does not amount to any proof. Therefore, the cross- examination of the complainant does not establish the defence taken by the accused. 21. It was submitted that the complainant had admitted the relationship between him and Sesh Ram, which establishes the defence taken by the accused. This submission cannot be accepted. The relationship between Sesh Ram and the complainant cannot lead to an inference that the cheque was issued to Sesh Ram and that Sesh Ram had handed over the cheque to the complainant. 22. The accused claimed that he had borrowed money from Sesh Ram, but failed to produce any evidence to establish this plea. It was suggested to the complainant that 15 2026:HHC:28410 the accused had repaid the money to Sesh Ram; however, no proof of the payment was filed. The accused was aware of the fact that he had handed over a cheque to Sesh Ram, which could be used against him. Therefore, being a prudent person, he would not have paid the money to Sesh Ram without taking the receipt or ensuring the proof of payment by depositing the amount in the account of Sesh Ram. No such material was produced on record, and the plea taken by the accused that the cheque was issued in favour of Sesh Ram, who had handed it over to the complainant, is not acceptable. 23. The accused did not examine any witness to prove the defence taken by him, and relied upon his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC to prove the plea that the cheque was issued in the name of Sesh Ram. This was not sufficient. It was held in Sumeti Vij v. Paramount Tech Fab Industries, (2022) 15 SCC 689: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 201 that the accused has to lead defence evidence to rebut the presumption and mere denial in his statement under Section 313 is not sufficient. It was observed at page 700: “20. That apart, when the complainant exhibited all these documents in support of his complaints and recorded the statement of three witnesses in support 16 2026:HHC:28410 thereof, the appellant recorded her statement under Section 313 of the Code but failed to record evidence to disprove or rebut the presumption in support of her defence available under Section 139 of the Act. The statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code is not substantive evidence of defence, but only an opportunity for the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution's case against the accused. Therefore, there is no evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration." (Emphasis supplied)” 24. Therefore, the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was not a legally admissible statement, and the accused cannot derive any advantage from it. 25. Therefore, learned Courts below had rightly held that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. 26. The complainant stated in his cross-examination that he had given ₹6,00,000/-to the accused, which he had earned by selling the apples. He admitted that he had not placed on record any document regarding the sale of apples. He also admitted that no writing was executed regarding the borrowing of the money. It was submitted that the complainant had failed to prove the source of the money or the payment of money to the accused. This submission will 17 2026:HHC:28410 not help the accused. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan, (2019) 10 SCC 287: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1361, that a presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would obviate the requirement to prove the existence of consideration. It was observed: “20. The trial court and the High Court proceeded as if the appellant was to prove a debt before the civil court, wherein the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due, and the dishonour of a cheque carries a statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of the cheque in due course is required to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused and that when the same was presented, it was not honoured. Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability.” 27. This position was reiterated in Ashok Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 706, wherein it was observed: “22. The High Court while allowing the criminal revision has primarily proceeded on the presumption that it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to establish his case on the basis of evidence by giving the details of the bank account as well as the date and time of the withdrawal of the said amount which was given to the accused and also the date and time of the payment made to the accused, including the date and time of receiving of the cheque, which has not been done in the present case. Pausing here, such presumption on the complainant, by the High Court, appears to be erroneous. The onus is not on the complainant at the threshold to prove his 18 2026:HHC:28410 capacity/financial wherewithal to make the payment in discharge of which the cheque is alleged to have been issued in his favour. Only if an objection is raised that the complainant was not in a financial position to pay the amount so claimed by him to have been given as a loan to the accused, only then would the complainant have to bring before the Court cogent material to indicate that he had the financial capacity and had actually advanced the amount in question by way of a loan. In the case at hand, the appellant had categorically stated in his deposition and reiterated in the cross-examination that he had withdrawn the amount from the bank in Faizabad (Typed Copy of his deposition in the paperbook wrongly mentions this as ‘Firozabad’). The Court ought not to have summarily rejected such a stand, more so when respondent no. 2 did not make any serious attempt to dispel/negate such a stand/statement of the appellant. Thus, on the one hand, the statement made before the Court, both in examination-in-chief and cross-examination, by the appellant with regard to withdrawing the money from the bank for giving it to the accused has been disbelieved, whereas the argument on behalf of the accused that he had not received any payment of any loan amount has been accepted. In our decision in S. S. Production v. Tr. Pavithran Prasanth, 2024 INSC 1059, we opined: ‘8. From the order impugned, it is clear that though the contention of the petitioners was that the said amounts were given for producing a film and were not by way of return of any loan taken, which may have been a probable defence for the petitioners in the case, but rightly, the High Court has taken the view that evidence had to be adduced on this point which has not been done by the petitioners. Pausing here, the Court would only comment that the reasoning of the High Court, as well as the First Appellate Court and Trial Court, on this issue is sound. Just by taking a counter-stand to raise a probable defence would not shift the onus on the complainant in such a case, for the 19 2026:HHC:28410 plea of defence has to be buttressed by evidence, either oral or documentary, which in the present case has not been done. Moreover, even if it is presumed that the complainant had not proved the source of the money given to the petitioners by way of loan by producing statement of accounts and/or Income Tax Returns, the same ipso facto, would not negate such claim for the reason that the cheques having being issued and signed by the petitioners has not been denied, and no evidence has been led to show that the respondent lacked capacity to provide the amount(s) in question. In this regard, we may make profitable reference to the decision in Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735: ‘10. The trial court and the first appellate court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are not a civil suit. At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity. To that extent, the courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable, which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents. It is also open to him to establish the very same aspect by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. He can further, more importantly, achieve this result through the cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant. Ultimately, it becomes the duty of the courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether, in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason 20 2026:HHC:28410 that the accused has established a probable defence.’(emphasis supplied)’ (underlining in original; emphasis supplied by us in bold). 28. A similar view was taken in Sanjay Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, wherein it was observed: “21. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that some District Courts and some High Courts are not giving effect to the presumptions incorporated in Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act and are treating the proceedings under the NI Act as another civil recovery proceedings and are directing the complainant to prove the antecedent debt or liability. This Court is of the view that such an approach is not only prolonging the trial but is also contrary to the mandate of Parliament, namely, that the drawer and the bank must honour the cheque; otherwise, trust in cheques would be irreparably damaged.” 29. Therefore, the complainant's version cannot be discarded because he has not produced the document regarding the sale of the apples or the advancement of the loan to the accused. 30. The complainant stated in his cross-examination that he had handed over the money to the accused in the denomination of ₹500/-. It was submitted that the payment of the money in cash violates Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, and the complaint was not maintainable. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by this Court in Surinder 21 2026:HHC:28410 Singh vs. State of H.P. 2018(1) D.C.R. 45 that contravention of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act will give rise to a penalty, but will not invalidate the transaction. It was observed: 5. The relevant portion of Section 269 SS of the IT Act reads thus: - "(a) the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit' or (b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid; or (c) The amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is (twenty) thousand rupees or more. Provided......" 6. Section 271D provides for a penalty for failure to comply with the aforesaid provisions, which reads thus: "271D. Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269-SS - (1) If a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of Section 269-SS, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted. (2) Any penalty impossible under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner." 7. A collective reading of both the aforesaid Sections would go to show that even though contravention of Section 269-SS of the IT Act would be visited with a strict penalty on the person taking the loan or deposit. 22 2026:HHC:28410 However, Section 271D does not in any manner suggest or even provide that such a transaction would be null and void. The payer of money in cash, in violation of Section 269 SS of the IT Act, can always have the money recovered. 8. The object of introducing Section 269 of the IT Act has been succinctly set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. Director of Inspection Investigation vs. A.B. Shanthi (2002) 6 SCC 259, wherein it was observed as under: - "8. The object of introducing Section 269-SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give a false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he has given some false entries in his accounts, he shall not escape by giving false entries in his accounts, or by giving a false explanation for the same. During search and seizures, unaccounted money is unearthed, and the taxpayer would usually give the explanation that he had borrowed or received deposits from his relatives or friends, and it is easy for the so-called lender also to manipulate his records later to suit the plea of the taxpayer. The main objection of Section 269-SS was to curb this menace." 9. In light of the aforesaid observations, it cannot but be said that Section 269-SS only provides for the mode of accepting payment or repayment in certain cases to counteract evasion of tax. However, Section 269-SS does not declare all transactions of loans by cash in excess of ₹20,000/- as invalid, illegal or null and void, as the main object of introducing the provision was to curb and unearth black money. 31. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, wherein it was observed: “19. Recently, the Kerala High Court in P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5535 has taken the view 23 2026:HHC:28410 that a debt created by a cash transaction above ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘IT Act, 1961’) is not a ‘legally enforceable debt’ unless there is a valid explanation for the same, meaning thereby that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act will not be attracted in cash transactions above ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). 20. 20. However, this Court is of the view that any breach of Section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961, is subject to a penalty only under Section 271D of the IT Act, 1961. Further, neither Section 269SS nor 271D of the IT Act, 1961 states that any transaction in breach thereof will be illegal, invalid or statutorily void. Therefore, any violation of Section 269SS would not render the transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the NI Act or rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act because such a person, assuming him/her to be the payee/holder in due course, is liable to be visited by a penalty only as prescribed. Consequently, the view that any transaction above Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) is illegal and void and therefore does not fall within the definition of ‘legally enforceable debt’ cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the conclusion of law in P.C. Hari (supra) is set aside.” 32. This position was reiterated in Shine Varghese Koipurathu v State of Kerala, Crl. A. No. 5385 of 2025 decided on 8th December 2025. 33. In the present case, no evidence was produced to rebut the presumption, and the learned Courts below had 24 2026:HHC:28410 rightly held that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds.’ 34. The complainant stated that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds. This was duly corroborated by the cheque returning memo (Ext.C-2/CW1), which mentioned the reason for dishonour as ‘insufficient funds’. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore, (2010) 3 SCC 83: (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 625: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1: 2010 SCC OnLine SC 155 that the memo issued by the Bank is presumed to be correct and the burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumption. It was observed at page 95: “24. Section 146, making a major departure from the principles of the Evidence Act, provides that the bank's slip or memo with the official mark showing that the cheque was dishonoured would, by itself, give rise to the presumption of dishonour of the cheque, unless and until that fact was disproved. Section 147 makes the offences punishable under the Act compoundable.” 35. In the present case, the accused has not produced any evidence to rebut the presumption, and the learned Courts below had rightly held that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. 25 2026:HHC:28410 36. The complainant stated that he had served a notice upon the accused. This is duly corroborated by the acknowledgement (Ext. C-6/CW-1). Thus, the service of notice was duly proved upon the accused. 37. In any case, 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 notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving 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 the 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 26 2026:HHC:28410 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 the legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act.” (Emphasis supplied) 38. The accused has not claimed that any money was paid by him to the complainant after the receipt of the notice. Therefore, it was duly proved that the accused had failed to pay the money despite the receipt of a valid notice of demand. 39. Thus, it was duly proved on record that the accused had issued a cheque to discharge his legal liability, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, and the accused failed to pay the money despite the receipt of a notice of demand. Hence, all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act were duly satisfied, and the learned Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 40. Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and pay a fine in the form of compensation of ₹8,50,000/- to the complainant. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 27 2026:HHC:28410 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.” 41. Keeping in view the deterrent nature of the punishment, the sentence of eight months cannot be said to be excessive. 42. The learned Trial Court awarded the compensation of ₹8,50,000/- on the cheque amount of ₹6,00,000/-, which means that the amount of ₹2,50,000 was awarded as compensation. The cheque was issued on 15.12.2016, and the sentence was imposed on 20.09.2024 after the lapse of 93 months. The complainant lost money that it would have gained by lending the money to someone. It had to engage a counsel to prosecute the complaint filed by him. Therefore, it 28 2026:HHC:28410 was entitled to be compensated for its loss. 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 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]” 43. An amount of ₹6,00,000/- would have earned ₹3,72,000/- as interest for 93 months, and the compensation of ₹2,50,000/- cannot be said to be excessive, requiring any interference from the Court. 44. No other point was urged. 29 2026:HHC:28410 45. In view of the above, the present revision petition fails, and it is dismissed. 46. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 14th July, 2026. (ravinder)