2026:HHC:19288 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.44 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.5.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ravi Dutt ……...Petitioner Versus Sunil Kumar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 11.8.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.56-N/4 of 2024 (CIS Regd. No. 56/2022), affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No.113/2018, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner- accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,000 to the complainant. 2026:HHC:19288 2 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent/complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of the Act, before the competent court of law, alleging therein that he approached the accused, who was interested in selling his land, for purchase of land at Rajgarh, and entered into an agreement to sell of the land comprising khasra No. 874/791, plot 1, total measuring 01.18 bighas to the extent of 00.02 bighas of the land situate at revenue village Fetahpur Sidhori, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh on 6.9.2014 at Rajgarh. Since accused failed to comply with terms of the sale agreement, complainant issued legal notice through his counsel on 3.7.2018 calling upon him to get the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant. Though after receipt of legal notice, accused agreed to return the money and issued a cheque bearing No.318683 dated 6.8.2018, amounting to Rs. 85,000/-, in favour of the complainant, however same on its presentation to the bank concerned was dishonoured with remarks “funds insufficient”. Immediately, after receipt of aforesaid memo, complainant served legal notice upon the accused, thereby calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated time, but in vain, as such, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law. 2026:HHC:19288 3 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 30.4.2022, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.8.2025. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set- aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below. 5. Vide order dated 1.1.2026, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below, subject to petitioner’s depositing 30% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, within four weeks, however fact remains that aforesaid order never came to be complied with. Repeatedly, this Court was informed that talks are going on with the respondent/complainant for amicable settlement, but no compromise, if any, arrived inter-se parties has been placed on record. Since order passed by this Court has not been 2026:HHC:19288 4 complied with coupled with the fact that petitioner is not coming forward to impart instructions to his counsel, this Court is compelled to decide the petition on merit. 6. Having carefully perused grounds taken in the appeal vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the learned Sessions Judge, thereby upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court finds that both the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there is no scope of interference. 7. In the case at hand, petitioner-accused at no point of time denied factum with regard to issuance of cheque as well as signature thereupon, rather he attempted to carve out a case that cheque in question was issued by him to a person namely Dinesh, however, such defence never came to be probablised by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Once factum with regard to issuance of cheque as well as signature thereupon never came to be disputed, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the courts below while invoking Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which clearly provide that there shall be presumption available in favour of the holder of the cheque that same was issued in 2026:HHC:19288 5 discharge of the lawful liability. No doubt, aforesaid presumption is rebuttable, but for that purpose, accused is/was under obligation to raise probable defence. Probable defence could be raised by the accused by referring to the documents as well as evidence adduced on record by the complainant or by leading some cogent and convincing evidence. However, in the case at hand, accused, despite sufficient opportunity, failed to raise probable defence. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Laxmi Dyechem V. State of Gujarat, 2013(1) RCR(Criminal), has categorically held that if the accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. To raise probable defence, accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant. Needless to say, if the accused/drawer of the cheque in question neither raises a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding commission of the offence comes into play. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant paras No.23 to 25 of the judgment herein: “23. Further, a three judge Bench of this Court in the matter of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan [3] held that Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable 2026:HHC:19288 6 instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies the strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of the cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. The Court however, further observed that it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose money is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the defendant accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof”. The Court further observed that it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is all preponderance of probabilities. 24. Therefore, if the accused is able to establish a probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is inconceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce the evidence of his/her own. If however, the accused/drawer of a cheque in question neither raises a probable defence nor able to contest existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, obviously statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act regarding commission of the offence comes into play if the same is not rebutted with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant. 25. It is no doubt true that the dishonour of cheques in order to qualify for prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act precedes a statutory notice where the drawer is called upon by allowing him to 2026:HHC:19288 7 avail the opportunity to arrange the payment of the amount covered by the cheque and it is only when the drawer despite the receipt of such a notice and despite the opportunity to make the payment within the time stipulated under the statute does not pay the amount, that the said default would be considered a dishonour constituting an offence, hence punishable. But even in such cases, the question whether or not there was lawfully recoverable debt or liability for discharge whereof the cheque was issued, would be a matter that the trial court will have to examine having regard to the evidence adduced before it keeping in view the statutory presumption that unless rebutted, the cheque is presumed to have been issued for a valid consideration. In view of this the responsibility of the trial judge while issuing summons to conduct the trial in matters where there has been instruction to stop payment despite sufficiency of funds and whether the same would be a sufficient ground to proceed in the matter, would be extremely heavy.” 9. To the contrary, complainant while examining himself as CW4 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext.CW4/A, reiterating therein contents of the complaint. He successfully proved on record that accused had issued a cheque Ext.CW4/B amounting to Rs. 85,000/-, towards discharge of lawful liability, but same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused vide memo Ext.CW1/B. He also proved on record that before initiation of proceedings, he served the accused with legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good, however accused despite his having received legal notice failed to do the needful. Cross-examination conducted upon afore witness 2026:HHC:19288 8 nowhere suggests that accused was able to extract something contrary to what this witness stated in examination-in-chief, rather pattern of cross- examination conducted upon afore witness clearly establishes factum with regard to issuance of cheque as well as signature thereupon. Though accused attempted to set up a case that cheque issued in favour of the person namely Dinesh Kumar by the petitioner, however, no explanation worth credence ever came to be led on record that how cheque in question came in the hands of the complainant. Best person to prove the defence taken by the accused could be Dinesh Kumar, but he was never cited as defence witness. 10. CW1, an official from UCO Bank, Rajgarh, proved the computer generated statement of the account of the accused and further deposed that cheque under reference was being received by their bank from State Cooperative Bank Rajgarh and cheque was dishonored on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused vide memo Ext.CW1/C. 11. CW2 document writer and CW3, one of the witness of the agreement under reference Ext.CW2/A, successfully proved agreement as detailed herein above and they also deposed qua transaction of agreement between the parties regarding sale purchase of the land as mentioned in the complaint. If cross-examination conducted upon afore witnesses is perused in its entirety, it cannot be said that accused was able to extract 2026:HHC:19288 9 something contrary to what these witnesses stated in their examination-in- chief. 12. Moreover, this Court has a very limited jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the courts below. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case “State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri” (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452, wherein it has been held as under:- “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 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 re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” 13. Since after having carefully examined the evidence in the present case, this Court is unable to find any error of law as well as fact, if 2026:HHC:19288 10 any, committed by the courts below while passing impugned judgments, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional power. 14. True it is that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order, but learned counsel representing the accused has failed to point out any material irregularity committed by the courts below while appreciating the evidence and as such, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by the courts below. 15. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court sees no valid reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments recorded by the courts below, which otherwise, appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, same are upheld. 16. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The petitioner is directed to surrender himself 2026:HHC:19288 11 before the learned trial Court within thirty days to serve the sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court, if not already served. Interim direction, if any, stands vacated. Learned court below is also directed to release the amount, if any, deposited before it by the accused, on filing appropriate application by the complainant within one week. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 21, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge