Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioner/accused filed a criminal revision against the judgment dated 25.2.2022 of the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which had partly upheld her conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and modified the sentence from one year's simple imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, while maintaining compensation of ₹13,03,293/-. The original conviction was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, in respect of a cheque for ₹11,84,811.08 issued by the accused towards discharge of a term loan of ₹21,15,000/- advanced by the complainant bank for purchase of a truck, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds.
The accused contended that the complainant had forcibly seized and sold the vehicle without crediting the proceeds to her account, that the loan was insured under the CGTMSE Scheme and amounts had been received by the complainant thereunder without disclosure in the complaint, that the cheque was taken in advance and filled without any existing liability, and that there were material alterations in the cheque. It was argued that no legally enforceable debt subsisted at the time of presentation of the cheque, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Both courts below had held that the statutory presumption under the NI Act attached to the cheque remained unrebutted, that the accused admitted taking the loan, that the notice of demand was deemed served, and that the complainant had proved all ingredients of the offence. The revision raised questions regarding the effect of insurance claim receipts under the CGTMSE Scheme on the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the correctness of the compensation awarded.
Catchwords:
Negotiable Instruments Act · Section 138 · dishonour of cheque · insufficient funds · legally enforceable debt · statutory presumption · CGTMSE Scheme · Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises · term loan · vehicle loan · compensation · criminal revision · sentence modification
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 71, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 15.5.2025 vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank on 2 July, 2025
2025:HHC:20832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision Nos. 136 of 2022
.
Reserved on: 15.5.2025
Date of Decision: 02.07.2025.
Savitri Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, Kharsi
through its Branch Manager.
...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior
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.