Partly allowed¶24

Deep Ram v. State Bank of India and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Dec 2025CR.R/197/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour; criminal revision under Section 438 BNSS; scope of revisional jurisdiction — no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity; concurrent findings of conviction upheld; sentence reduction upon deposit of entire compensation; imprisonment till the rising of the Court; no minimum punishment under Section 138 NI Act; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Neutral citation 2025:HHC:42181; Decided 04.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court upheld; sentence modified — instead of simple imprisonment for two months, the accused is sentenced to undergo punishment till the rising of the Court; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly. ¶24

Deep Ram Vs State Bank of India and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court were perverse, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction? +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence unless the findings recorded by the trial Court, as upheld by the Appellate Court, are held to be perverse; the findings here do not fall within the definition of 'perverse findings' and do not require interference (guided by State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659).

¶18

Ratio / Principle

From the evidence of CW-1 the complainant proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and even the defence witness deposed about sanction of the loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- and, in examination-in-chief, that the accused had issued the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- as payment towards the loan when the account was declared NPA.

¶15

Key takeaways

Since the accused voluntarily deposited the entire amount of compensation and the complainant filed no appeal or proceedings for enhancement, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be interfered with — 'law is good, but, justice is better'.ratio¶20
Considering the deposit of compensation, the nature of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, and that no minimum punishment is prescribed for the offence, the punishment is on the higher side and the quantum of punishment is modified: the accused is sentenced to undergo punishment 'till the rising of the Court' (view fortified by P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 258).ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision under Section 438 BNSS against concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act — revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings of the courts below are held to be perverse (view guided by State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659, quoting Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960) — complainant's case held proved beyond reasonable doubt on CW-1's evidence, defence witness also admitting sanction of loan and issuance of cheque — conviction upheld. On sentence: accused having voluntarily deposited the entire compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- and the complainant having filed no appeal or proceedings for enhancement, and Section 138 NI Act prescribing no minimum punishment, the sentence of two months' simple imprisonment held to be on the higher side and modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court — Section 138 is a hybrid provision whose real object is to compensate the victim, not to penalise the wrongdoer (P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 258). Revision partly allowed.

¶1

1 2025:HHC:42181

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

	Cr. Revision No. : 197 of 2025
	Decided on : 04.12.2025
Deep Ram	…Petitioner
	Versus
State Bank of India & Anr.	…Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Pranav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional A.Gs. with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Avni Kochhar, Deputy A.Gs., for respondent No. 2.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

¶9

Petitioner-Deep Ram has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition, under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), against the judgment, dated

¶10

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

2 2025:HHC:42181

¶12

10.01.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. Camp at Karsog, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2023, titled as “Deep Ram Vs State Bank of India, Branch at Kot and another”.

¶13

Vide judgment, dated 10.01.2025, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 25.07.2023, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No. 15/2019, titled as “State Bank of India, Branch Kot Vs Deep Ram”.

¶14

By virtue of the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a compensation of 2,10,000/-.₹

¶15

3 2025:HHC:42181

¶16

After the dismissal of the appeal, present

¶17

Revision Petition has been filed before this Court. For the

¶18

sake of convenience, the parties, to the lis, are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

¶19

Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:

¶20

5.1. Complainant-State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Branch Kot (Alsindi), Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, before the learned trial Court, against the accused, on the ground that the accused had raised a house loan of Rs. 3,50,000/-, on 14.03.2018, and in this regard, he has furnished the necessary documents. Thereafter, in discharge of his liability, the accused had issued a cheque No. 313086 (hereinafter referred to as ‘cheque in question’), amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-, dated 07.12.2018, out of the bank account maintained by him with State Bank of India, Branch at Kot (Alsindi). The said cheque, as per the instructions of the accused was

¶21

4 2025:HHC:42181

¶22

presented for encashment, however, the same has been returned back encashed by the banker on 07.12.2018. Thereafter, the complainant bank issued the requisite notice on 14.12.2018. Despite service of the notice, neither the accused had paid the amount of the cheque in question, nor replied the notice. After waiting for the statutory period, the complaint has been filed, before learned trial Court.

¶23

5.2 On the basis of the documents, so annexed with the complaint, as well as, the affidavit tendered in the preliminary evidence, learned trial Court has found a prima facie case to proceed against the accused, as such, summoning order was passed on, 30.01.2019.

¶24

5.3 After securing the presence of the accused, learned trial Court has found a prima facie case for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, as such, notice of accusation was put to him, vide order dated 19.07.2019. When, the notice of accusation was put to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Consequently, complainant was directed to adduce the evidence. The complainant examined Lokesh Sharma,

¶25

5 2025:HHC:42181

¶26

Branch Manager SBI Kot as CW-1. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded, under Section 313 CrPC, on 21.07.2022. The accused has examined Pankaj Kumar, Assistant Manager SBI Kot as DW-1, in his defence evidence.

¶27

5.4 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 25.07.2023, as referred to above, has convicted the accused and sentenced him, as aforesaid.

¶28

Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court, the accused had preferred appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which has been dismissed, by the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment, dated 10.01.2025.

¶29

Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment, the present Criminal Revision has been filed, by the accused, before this Court, calling in question the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, as well as, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court, on the ground, that the evidence has been

¶30

6 2025:HHC:42181

¶31

misread and mis-appreciated by the learned trial Court, as,

¶32

the learned trial Court has wrongly taken into consideration the documents annexed, as well as, the evidence tendered in preliminary evidence. The findings have been assailed on the ground that no documentary, as well as, oral evidence has been produced by the complainant before the learned trial Court, from which, it can be probablized that the appellant permitted respondent

¶33

No. 1 to present the cheque, in discharge of legal liability, towards his loan. He has reasserted the stand, as taken in the statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶34

On the basis of above facts, Sh. Pranav Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has prayed that Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, may kindly be set aside.

¶35

Per contra, Sh. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the complainant-bank, has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the

¶36

7 2025:HHC:42181

¶37

ground that there is nothing on the record to demonstate that the accused has proved/probablized his defence.

¶38

In this case, accused-petitioner has deposited the entire amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned trial Court, i.e. Rs. 63,000/-, on 05.10.2023 and Rs. 63,000/- on 01.05.225, before the learned trial Court, and Rs. 84,000/- with the Registry of this Court.

¶39

When the notice of accusation was put to the accused, before the learned trial Court, he has not pleaded guilty. Thereafter, the complainant has examined Lokesh Sharma, Manager of the complainant bank, who has tendered his affidavit, asserting that the cheque in question was issued by the accused, in discharge of his existing liability. In addition to this, he has also deposed with regard to the statutory compliance of the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act, as to how he had issued the notice, calling upon the accused, to make the payment within the stipulated period, however, the said notice was neither replied, nor, the payment was made, pursuant to which, the complaint had been filed, before the learned

¶40

2025:HHC:42181

¶41

trial Court, upon which, the summoning order was passed by the learned trial Court.

¶42

This witness, in his cross-examination, has admitted that in the year 2018, a loan amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the accused. He has admitted that he has not sanctioned the said loan. However, he has denied that the cheques were obtained as security. Rest of the suggestions, he had denied.

¶43

The accused has examined Pankaj Kumar, Assistant Manager of the complainant bank, who has deposed that in the month of March, 2018, loan was sanctioned by his predecessor-in-interest. Loan was sanctioned for Rs. 3,50,000/-, out of which Rs. 2,00,000/was released. Out of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in March, 2018, Rs. 1,00,000/- was released and in the month of April, 2018, remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was released. After releasing the amount, when the spot was inspected, no house was found to be constructed on the spot. Thereafter, the remaining amount of the loan was not released. He has also deposed, in the examination-in-chief, that the accused had issued the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/-. This

¶44

9 2025:HHC:42181

¶45

witness has been declared hostile, on the request of the learned Counsel for the accused. In the crossexamination, by the learned Counsel for the accused, nothing material could be elicited.

¶46

This is the entire evidence, led before the learned trial Court, by the parties.

¶47

In this case, from the evidence of CW-1, the complainant has proved its case beyond its reasonable doubt, even the defence witness has also deposed about the sanctioning of the loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and deposed, in the examination-in-chief, that the accused had issued the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- as payment of the said loan amount when the loan account was declared as NPA.

¶48

This Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate the evidence, until or unless the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, have been held to be perverse.

¶49

While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in

¶50

State of Maharashtra versus Jagmohan Singh Kuldip

¶51

10 2025:HHC:42181

¶52

Singh Anand and others, reported as (2004) 7 SCC 659.

¶53

Relevant paragraph-23, of the judgment, is reproduced, as

¶54

under:-

¶55

“23. On this aspect, it is sufficient to refer to and rely on the decision of this court in Duli chand vs. Delhi Administration, [AIR 1975 SC 1960], in which it is observed thus :-

¶56

“The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to reappreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. "

¶57

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the view that the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, do not fall within the definition of ‘perverse findings’. As such, the same do not require any interference, by this Court.

¶58

11 2025:HHC:42181

¶59

In this case, the accused has deposited the amount of compensation voluntarily, as he was simply been directed to deposit only 30% of the amount of compensation, which shall be in addition to the amount, if already deposited by him.

¶60

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, i.e. the voluntary act of the accused to deposit the entire amount of compensation, and the nature and scope of the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, once, the entire amount of compensation has been deposited and that the complainant has not filed any appeal, or proceedings, for enhancement of compensation, the order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court, is liable to be interfered with, as, law is good, but, justice is better.

¶61

In the absence of any sentencing policy, although, the same is in the exclusive domain of the trial Court, but, considering the subsequent development, i.e. the deposit of the compensation amount by the accused and the nature of the proceedings under Section 138 of the

¶62

12 2025:HHC:42181

¶63

NI Act, this Court is of the view that the punishment, in the present case, is on the higher side.

¶64

My this view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj and others versus

¶65

Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 258 . Relevant paragraph 45, of the judgment, is reproduced, as

¶66

under:-

¶67

“45. Section 138 contains within it the ingredients of the offence made out. The deeming provision is important in that the legislature is cognizant of the fact that what is otherwise a civil liability is now also deemed to be an offence, since this liability is made punishable by law. It is important to note that the transaction spoken of is a commercial transaction between two parties which involves payment of money for a debt or liability. The explanation to Section 138 makes it clear that such debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Thus, a debt or other liability barred by the law of limitation would be outside the scope of Section 138. This, coupled with fine that may extend to twice the amount of the cheque that is payable as compensation to the aggrieved party to cover both the amount of the cheque and the interest and costs thereupon, would show that it is really a hybrid provision to enforce payment under a bounced cheque if it is otherwise enforceable in civil law. Further, though the ingredients of the offence are contained in the first part Section 138 when the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid for the reasons given in the Section, the proviso gives an opportunity to the drawer of the cheque, stating that the drawer must fail to make payment of

¶68

2025:HHC:42181

¶69

the amount within 15 days of the receipt of a notice, again making it clear that the real object of the provision is not to penalise the wrongdoer for an offence that is already made out, but to compensate the victim.”

¶70

(self emphasis supplied)

¶71

In the light of the aforesaid decision and considering the fact that under the NI Act, no minimum punishment has been provided, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, this Court is of the view that the quantum of punishment is liable to be modified. Consequently, the ends of justice would be met, in case, the accused is sentenced to undergo punishment ‘till the rising of the Court’.

¶72

In view of the above, the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, is upheld, but, the appeal is partly allowed, to the extent of quantum of sentence, by modifying the same, as mentioned above.

¶73

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

¶74

Send down the record.

¶75

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶76

04^th December, 2025

¶77

( Pramod Kumar )

Deep Ram v. State Bank of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deep Ram v. State Bank of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Thakur Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Anuj Sharma and Anr.

Satpal Vs State of Hp

Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Reena Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp