Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, upon a complaint filed by the respondent/complainant alleging that a cheque of ₹90,000/- issued by the accused was dishonoured with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The accused admitted issuance of the cheque but claimed it was issued as security for a lottery business. The Trial Court held that admission of signatures and issuance of the cheque triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, which the accused failed to rebut, and convicted him, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one year and directing payment of compensation of ₹1,36,000/-.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, on appeal, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumption, that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds, that legal notice was duly served, and that the defence plea regarding the lottery business and security cheque was not probable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
In the present criminal revision, the petitioner/accused contended that the judgments of the courts below were based on conjectures and surmises, that inadmissible evidence was relied upon, that the complainant failed to prove an enforceable debt/liability, and that the notice was defective as it mentioned the total amount of ₹2,94,000/- rather than the cheque amount. The Court noted that a revisional court is not an appellate court and can only rectify patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Catchwords:
Negotiable Instruments Act · Section 138 · cheque dishonour · insufficient funds · presumption under Section 118(a) · presumption under Section 139 · security cheque · legal notice · revisional jurisdiction · concurrent findings
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
Full Judgment Text
[Cites 38, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 19.11.2025 vs Of on 12 December, 2025
2025:HHC:43247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 564 of 2025
Reserved on: 19.11.2025
.
Date of Decision: 12.11.2025
Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
of
Ashok Kumar Bansal .... Respondent
Coram
rt
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent/ State : Nemo.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.