The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a cheque bounce conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the accused’s plea that the complainant filled in the cheque could not be accepted at the revision stage, because it was never suggested to the complainant during cross-examination.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed the criminal revision. The accused had challenged concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court in a dispute over a ₹75,000 loan.
Background
The complainant said he and the accused had been friends for 10 years. In October 2010, the accused asked him for ₹75,000 for business and promised to repay it within a month. The complainant advanced the money. When he asked for it back, the accused issued a cheque for ₹75,000 drawn on UCO Bank, Rajgarh.
The cheque was dishonoured for “funds insufficient.” The complainant sent a legal notice by registered post. The accused refused to accept it, and the envelope was returned.
On 28.11.2013, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, convicted the accused. He was sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and ordered to pay ₹75,000 as compensation, with three months’ further simple imprisonment in default. The Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dismissed his appeal on 30.7.2014.
Arguments
Advocate N.K. Tomar, appearing for the accused-petitioner, argued that the complainant had not proved his financial capacity to lend the money. He also argued that the body of the cheque was in different handwriting from the accused’s signature. According to him, this supported the defence that a blank cheque had been misused.
Advocate C.S. Thakur, appearing for the complainant, submitted that the complainant’s testimony was not shaken in cross-examination. He added that the accused had led no evidence to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque.
Additional Advocate General Jitender Sharma, for the State, said the dispute was between private parties and the State had no submissions to make.
Court’s Findings on Blank Cheque Plea
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah, the Court noted that a revisional court does not act as an appellate court.
The Court pointed out that the complainant’s testimony about the accused handing over the cheque went unchallenged. It observed: “Even the plea taken by the accused in the revision petition that the body of the cheque was filled by the complainant himself was not suggested to the complainant.” Citing Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam and Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana, the Court held that this plea could not be accepted in revision.
Relying on Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, the Court also held: “the mere fact that the cheque has not been filled by the accused is not sufficient to absolve him from liability.” It noted that the accused had not disputed his signature, so the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act applied.
Financial Capacity and Deemed Service
The complainant had admitted that his ₹5,00,000 loan from the HP State Cooperative Bank had become irregular. The Court rejected the argument that this admission cast doubt on his financial capacity. It noted that the evidence did not show when the account had become irregular.
Relying on Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, the Court held: “the accused had not sent any reply to the notice questioning the complainant’s financial capacity, and he is not entitled to say that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to advance the loan.”
The Court also noted that the accused had not explained, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, how the cheque signed by him came into the complainant’s possession. Citing N. Parameswaran Unni v. G. Kannan, it held that his refusal to accept the registered notice amounted to deemed service.
Sentence
The Court held that six months’ imprisonment was not excessive given the deterrent nature of Section 138. It observed that awarding only the cheque amount was inadequate. However, since no appeal had been filed against the inadequacy of the sentence, it could not interfere.
Relying on K.A. Abbas v. Sabu Joseph and R. Mohan v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar, the Court rejected the argument that imprisonment in default of compensation was impermissible.
The revision was dismissed, and the Court directed that the records be sent back to the courts below.
Case Title: Krishan Kumar vs Vijender Kumar & Anr.
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 364 of 2014
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Date: 14.10.2026
