Narotam Chand Vs Rakesh Kumar and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Narotam Chand Vs Rakesh Kumar and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision allowed; judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Sarkaghat, affirmed on 18.12.2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, ordered to be set aside; accused acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act; fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded after expiry of the limitation period (subject to treatment of any appeal); petitioner directed to furnish bail bonds of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount within four weeks, effective for six months (Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS 2023).

Issue for consideration

Scope of the criminal revisional jurisdiction: whether the revisional court may re-appreciate evidence or disturb the concurrent findings of conviction of the courts below, or is confined to rectifying patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law. +1 more

Court's answer

The testimony of Mohinder Singh (RW2), a public official who deposed based on records with nothing suggested in cross-examination that he was making a false statement or had motive against the complainant, is to be accepted as correct.

Ratio / Principle

A criminal revisional court is not an appellate court: it can only rectify patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law, and the present revision had to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Key takeaways

The complainant's failure to specifically deny that he belonged to the IRDP/BPL category corroborates the statement of Mohinder Singh (RW2) that the complainant was included in the IRDP/BPL list.ratio¶71
Once the complainant is held to be in the IRDP/BPL category, his income would be less than ₹2,500/- per month; an advance of ₹7,00,000/- (about 24 years' income) would make his claim of having advanced that sum doubtful.ratio¶72
The complainant relied only on the presumptions and produced no supporting evidence; his claimed cash of ₹4 lacs was suspect and the purported lender (father-in-law, source of ₹3,00,000/-) was not produced; hence the essential ingredient that the complainant actually advanced the amount discharged by the cheque was not fulfilled.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh HC (Shimla), Cr. Revision No. 139 of 2022, Rakesh Kainthla, J., decided 22.06.2026: Revision against concurrent conviction under s.138 NI Act allowed; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2018 (JMFC Court No.2, Sarkaghat — one year simple imprisonment plus ₹85,000/- compensation for dishonour of a ₹7,00,000/- cheque presented by complainant Rakesh Kumar), affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat on 18.12.2021, set aside; accused (Narotam Chand) acquitted. Framework: revisional jurisdiction is narrow — confined to rectifying patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law; no re-appreciation of evidence nor disturbance of concurrent findings absent perversity (relying on Malkeet Singh Gill, State of Gujarat v. DilipsinhKishorsinh Rao, Kishan Rao, Bir Singh; referring within quotations to Amit Kapoor, Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, Southern Sales & Services). On the merits: Gram Panchayat Secretary Mohinder Singh (RW2) testified the complainant was entered at Sl. No 435-22 in the BPL list; the complainant's non-denial corroborated this, implying income below ₹2,500/- per month, so advancing ₹7,00,000/- (about 24 years' income) became doubtful; the claimed ₹3,00,000/- borrowing from the father-in-law was unsupported (lender not produced); the essential ingredient — that the complainant actually advanced the amount discharged by the cheque — was unfulfilled; the accused needed only a probable defence on the preponderance of probability and was entitled to acquittal. Side remark: Kumar Exports and Basalingappa (dealing with the presumption under s.139 NI Act) declared not relevant. Deposited fine, if any, to be refunded after the limitation period; bail bonds of ₹25,000/- with one surety directed within four weeks (effective six months) under s.437-A CrPC / s.481 BNSS 2023.