Criminal revision against concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act for a dishonoured cheque of Rs.1,25,000. The accused claimed the cheque was a security but led no evidence to rebut statutory presumptions. The High Court upheld both courts below and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:HHC:6965
THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No.423 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026
| ________________________________________ Sh. Madan Lal Versus |
_______________ …….Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Sh. Bhupender Kumar & another | … Respondents |
| ________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 |
_______________ |
| For the Petitioner | : | Mr. Dipankar S. Bagga, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|
| For the Respondents | : | Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.1. |
| Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. |
||
| ___________________ Sandeep Sharma, Jud |
____ ge (o |
________________________________ ral): |
Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 438
read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2024, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 02.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 06.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Complaint No.376
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2026:HHC:6965
of 2017, titled Bhupender Kumar vs. Madan Lal , whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused ( for short ‘accused’) guilty of his having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act( for short ‘Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- to the respondent-complainant.
3
2026:HHC:6965
payment good within stipulated time, but since he failed to make the payment good within stipulated time, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, which subsequently, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.
4
2026:HHC:6965
amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court within a period of eight weeks. However, fact remains that aforesaid order was not complied with and thereafter, on the request of the petitioner, afore order dated 28.07.2025 was modified to the extent that petitioner shall be liable to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. Though, petitioner deposited 20% of the compensation amount in terms of order dated 22.09.2025, but fact remains that thereafter matter repeatedly came to be adjourned, enabling the petitioner-accused to deposit the remaining amount, but in vain. Petitioner, who is present in Court, states that he is not in a position to pay the remaining amount and as such, this Court has no option, but to decide the case at hand on its own merits.
5
2026:HHC:6965
6
2026:HHC:6965
by the accused and it bears his signatures. Though accused, by putting such suggestions, attempted to raise probable defence to the effect that the cheque Ex. CW1/B allegedly issued in favour of some other person, had been misused by the complainant, however he was not able to probablize afore defence by leading cogent and convincing evidence. He also put a suggestion to the complainant that cheque was filled by using a different pen, however such suggestion was categorically denied by him. Since in the case at hand, factum of issuance of legal notice as well as receipt thereof was never disputed by the petitioner-accused and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned courts below, while retuning a finding that complainant had successfully proved all the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act.
7
2026:HHC:6965
committed by Courts below, while invoking Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, which speak about presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that cheque was issued towards discharge of lawful liability. No doubt, aforesaid presumption is rebuttable, but to rebut such presumption, accused either can refer to the documents and evidence led on record by the complainant or presumption can be rebutted by leading positive evidence, if any. However, in the instant case, despite sufficient opportunities, petitioner-accused failed to lead any evidence and as such, he otherwise failed to probablize the defence, sought to be raised by him, while deposing under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
8
2026:HHC:6965
“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 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 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
9
2026:HHC:6965
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.
as “security” can also attract offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titl ed Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand , Criminal Appeal No. 1269-1270 of 2021, decided on 28.10.2021, has held as under:
“16. A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. ‘Security’ in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfilment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow.
statutorily defined expression in the Negotiable Instruments Act, rather same is to be inferred from the pleadings as well as evidence, if
10
2026:HHC:6965
any, led on record with regard to issuance of security cheque. The Negotiable Instruments Act does not per se carve out an exception in respect of a “security cheque” to say that a complaint in respect of such a cheque would not be maintainable as there is a debt existing in respect whereof the cheque in question is issued, same would attract provision of Section 138 of the Act in case of its dishonour.
“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
11
2026:HHC:6965
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.”
present case, this Court is unable to find any error of law as well as fact, if any, committed by the courts below, while passing impugned judgments, there is no occasion, whatsoever, to exercise the revisional power.
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.
12
2026:HHC:6965
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.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge
March 12, 2026
(shankar)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent convictions under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of a cheque of Rs.1,25,000 warranted interference in revision.
Whether the accused rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act by claiming the cheque was issued as security.
Whether the High Court's revisional jurisdiction extends to re-appreciating evidence already appreciated by two courts below.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Laxmi Dyechem V. State of GujaratRelied on¶10
M/s Laxmi Dyechem V. State of Gujarat, 2013(1) RCR(Criminal)
Sripati Singh v. State of JharkhandRelied on¶11
Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1269-1270 of 2021
State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan NamboodiriRelied on¶14
State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452
Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and anotherReferred¶16
Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Madan Lal
Bhupender Kumar
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
