The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the conviction of an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, reiterating that once the execution of a cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act operate against the accused.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and cannot be exercised to reappreciate evidence in the absence of perversity.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a complaint filed by Jagdish Kumar Sharma (Respondent) against Sohan Lal (Petitioner). The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque of ₹2,50,000 to discharge a liability. When presented to the Punjab National Bank, Branch at Theog, the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “funds insufficient.”
The complainant sent a legal notice on June 21, 2016, through registered post. Despite service of notice, the accused failed to repay the amount. Consequently, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, convicted the accused on April 17, 2023, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one year and ordering him to pay compensation of ₹5,00,000.
The accused appealed the decision, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, Camp at Theog, dismissed the appeal on January 16, 2025. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the accused approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner/accused, Mr. I.S. Chandel, argued that the lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence. The primary contentions were:
- The complainant failed to prove the loan of ₹2,50,000.
- The cheque was misplaced by the accused and subsequently misused by the complainant.
- The complaint was premature as it was filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of the notice. The counsel relied on the judgment of the High Court in Govind Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. [2025:HHC:33346].
Per contra, Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, counsel for the respondent, supported the judgments of the courts below.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction
The Court first addressed the scope of its power under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022). Justice Kainthla noted that the High Court is “not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court” and can only interfere to “set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.”
Referencing Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025), the Court observed:
“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.”
2. Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act
The Court observed that the accused admitted his signature on the cheque in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Relying on APS Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers (2020) and N. Vijay Kumar v. Vishwanath Rao N. (2025), the Court held that admission of signature triggers the presumption that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt.
Addressing the defence that the cheque was lost, the Court stated:
“The accused stated in his cross-examination that his cheque was misplaced… However, his statement is silent regarding reporting the loss of the cheque to the bank. Any prudent person would have immediately informed the bank to stop the payment of the lost cheque. The failure to report the matter to the Bank would make it difficult to rely upon the statement of the accused that he had lost the cheque.”
3. Service of Notice and Premature Complaint
The accused contended that the notice he received mentioned a different name and that the complaint was premature. The Court rejected the plea regarding the wrong notice, noting that the accused never sent a reply to clarify this.
Regarding the argument that the complaint was premature, the Court examined the record which showed a stamp of Post Office Narkanda indicating delivery on June 23, 2016.
“The accused had 15 days to pay the amount after the receipt of the notice. Complainant could have filed the complaint within one month thereafter. In the present case, the complaint was filed after the expiration of 15 days and within the period of one month; therefore, it cannot be said to be premature.”
The Court also cited C.C. Allavi Haji vs. Pala Pelly Mohd. Haji (2007), holding that a drawer who claims non-receipt of notice can pay the amount within 15 days of receiving the court summons. “In the present case, no payment was made, and the plea that notice was not received by the accused will not help him,” the Court ruled.
4. Sentence and Compensation
The Court found the sentence of one year imprisonment appropriate, citing the deterrent nature of Section 138 as observed in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019). Regarding the compensation of ₹5,00,000 (double the cheque amount), the Court relied on Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021), which held that courts should uniformly levy fines up to twice the cheque amount.
“Keeping in view these considerations, the compensation of ₹2,50,000/- on the cheque amount of ₹2,50,000/- is not excessive,” the Judge concluded.
Decision
The High Court held that all ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act were satisfied. The Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the judgment of conviction dated April 17, 2023, and the order of sentence dated April 19, 2023.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sohan Lal v. Jagdish Kumar Sharma
- Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 188 of 2025
- Citation: 2025:HHC:44717
- Coram: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. I.S. Chandel
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri
