2026:HHC:29327 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 683 of 2025 Reserved on: 7.7.2026 Date of Decision: 17.7.2026. Salig Ram ...Petitioner Versus Shimla Urban Cooperative Ltd. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr T.K. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.07.2025, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 27.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29327 the same manner as they were read 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 in the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is engaged in banking activities. The complainant advanced a loan of ₹50,000/- to the accused on 17.08.2014, and the accused executed various documents. The accused promised to repay the amount along with interest in equated monthly instalments. The accused issued a cheque of ₹1,00,000/- to discharge his liability on 08.10.2015. The complainant presented the cheque at its bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant issued a notice to the accused asking him to repay 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 repay the money. Hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Court for taking action as per the law. 3 2026:HHC:29327 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 NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The complainant examined L.D. Verma (CW1) to prove its complaint. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), stated that he had taken a loan of ₹2,00,000/- and handed over the cheque as security. He denied that he had received any notice. He claimed that a false case was made against him. He did not produce any evidence to prove his defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed, and a presumption would be attracted that the accused had issued the cheque to the complainant for consideration to discharge debt/liability. The complainant failed to rebut this presumption. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of ‘insufficient funds’. The notice was duly served upon the accused, and he had failed to repay any money. All the 4 2026:HHC:29327 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 15 days and pay a fine of ₹1,70,000/- to the complainant. 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-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). The Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the Learned Trial Court that the issuance of the cheque was not disputed; hence, a presumption would arise that the cheque was issued to the complainant in discharge of the legal liability. The accused failed to rebut this presumption by leading any satisfactory evidence. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, and the notice was duly served upon the accused. He 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. 5 2026:HHC:29327 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment 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 complainant admitted that the instalment of ₹6,000/- per month was being regularly deducted from the salary of the accused towards the repayment of the loan in question, and this deduction continued until 14.05.2020. Therefore, the complainant had no reason to present a cheque of ₹1,00,000/- before the bank. The complainant's version was doubtful that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge the debt/liability. Hence, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 9. I have heard Mr T.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service; hence, none could be heard on the respondent’s behalf. 10. Mr T.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the accused was regularly paying the monthly instalments from his salary as per the admission made by the complainant’s witness, and there was no question of any default 6 2026:HHC:29327 in the repayment of the loan. An amount of ₹50,000/- was advanced to the accused as per the complaint. However, a cheque of ₹1,00,000/- was presented after one year, which could not have been the amount due. The accused had regularly paid the installments and the monthly instalments were being deducted from his salary. The learned courts below failed to appreciate the significance of the cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses and erred in convicting the accused. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 11. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. 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- 7 2026:HHC:29327 “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 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. 13. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v. DilipsinhKishorsinh 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 8 2026:HHC:29327 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 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.” 9 2026:HHC:29327 14. 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 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 10 2026:HHC:29327 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 SanjaysinhRamrao 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 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.” 15. 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:29327 “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.” 16. A similar view was taken in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, wherein it was observed: “27. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings [See: Bir Singh(supra)]. This Court is of the view that it is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. 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. 28. Consequently, this Court is of the view that in the absence of perversity, it was not open to the High Court in the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, to upset the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court. 17. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12 2026:HHC:29327 18. The accused, Salig Ram (DW1), stated that he had taken a loan of ₹2,00,000/- in the year 2014. He was regularly paying the instalment at the rate of ₹6,000/- per month with effect from September, 2015 till March, 2020. The complainant had obtained 3-4 blank cheques as security at the time of advancing the loan. The complainant presented a cheque of ₹1,00,000/- despite the fact that the instalments were being paid regularly. He stated in his cross-examination that he had taken a loan of ₹50,000/- and ₹2,00,000/- and was paying the instalments of ₹6,000/- and ₹4,000/- per month. He admitted that he could not pay the regular instalments in between. 19. The accused has not disputed his signature on the cheque or the issuance of the cheque. He claimed that he had issued the security cheque at the time of taking the loan. Thus, the learned Courts below had rightly held that the issuance of the cheque and the signatures on the cheque were not in dispute. 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 13 2026:HHC:29327 cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability. It was observed: - “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 a presumption is rebuttable. 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.” 14 2026:HHC:29327 20. This position was reiterated 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 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.” 21. A similar view was taken 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. 15 2026:HHC:29327 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]. 22. Thus, the Court has to start with the presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of the liability for consideration, and the burden is upon the accused to rebut this presumption. 23. L.D. Verma (CW1) stated in his cross-examination that the loan instalments were being deducted from the salary of the accused till 14.5.2020. Thus, as per the statement of L.D. Verma, the loan instalments were being paid regularly, and there was no question of presenting a cheque of ₹1,00,000/- on 08.10.2015. 24. The statement of account (Ex.C7/CW1) was with effect from 18.01.2017 and does not establish the liability in the year 2015. Another loan account statement shows an amount of ₹2,48,070/- as a withdrawal. It only mentions a cash deposit of ₹7,000/- on 04.11.2015. Thus, it is contrary to the statement of L.D. Verma (CW1) that the loan amount was being regularly deducted from the salary of the accused. The specific case of the 16 2026:HHC:29327 complainant is that a loan of ₹50,000/- was advanced, and it is not explained how an amount of ₹2,48,070/- has been shown in the statement of account. Therefore, it is difficult to rely upon the statement of the account to determine the liability of the accused. 25. The accused admitted in his statement on oath that he had taken the loan of ₹2,50,000/-. This admission will not help the complainant because the complaint has not been filed regarding the loan of ₹2,00,000/-, and it is not stated by the complainant in the complaint or by L.D. Verma on oath that both the loans were consolidated. The complaint's case is simple: a loan of ₹ 50,000 was advanced to the accused, and he failed to repay the amount. Thus, the statement of account is not connected to the present complaint. 26. It is further not explained how an amount of ₹50,000/- would become ₹1,00,000/- after the lapse of one year, and that too when the loan instalments were being regularly paid. This shows that the amount of ₹1,00,000/- mentioned in the cheque is not towards the repayment of the 17 2026:HHC:29327 debt/liability, and the accused would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 27. The learned Courts below proceeded on the basis that a cheque carries with it a presumption of correctness which had not been rebutted. However, this premise is not correct, as the cross-examination of L.D. Verma makes it doubtful that an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was due when the loan instalments were being paid regularly. Further, the statement of account of the accused was not proper as it does not show the amount of loan advanced by the complainant or the deduction from the salary of the accused. The accused does not have to prove his defence beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is sufficient that he satisfies the Court on the preponderance of the probability that the defence taken by him is correct. 28. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1275 that the presumption applies in the absence of evidence and disappears after the evidence is produced. It was observed: “38. John Henry Wigmore [John Henry Wigmore and the Rules of Evidence: The Hidden Origins of Modern Law] on Evidence states as follows: 18 2026:HHC:29327 “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’.” 29. Therefore, the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused and the learned Appellate Court erred in upholding the conviction and the sentence. 30. In view of the above, the present revision is allowed, judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 27.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Shimla, H.P., as affirmed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., are ordered to be set aside. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The fine, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner/accused after the expiry of the period of limitation, in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 19 2026:HHC:29327 31. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the petitioner/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 32. A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th July, 2026 (Chander)