Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 19.12.2025 vs Pnb on 1 January, 2026
2026:HHC:34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 261 of 2019
.
Reserved on: 19.12.2025
Date of Decision: 1.1.2026.
Sandeep Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
of
Versus
PNB ...Respondent
rt
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate,
Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 2.5.2019, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.12.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP (learned Trial Court) were upheld (Parties 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 22026:HHC:34 shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) .
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable of Instruments (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies rt (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act. It is engaged in banking activities through its various branches, and one such branch is located at Ghumarwin. The accused approached the complainant bank for a loan of ₹1,50,000/-. He completed various formalities, and the bank sanctioned a loan of ₹1,50,000/-. The complainant defaulted on the repayment of the loan. He issued a cheque of ₹30,000/- in partial discharge of his liability. The complainant presented the cheque to the bank, but it was dishonoured with the endorsement 'insufficient funds'. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused asking him to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was delivered to the accused on 24.6.2017, ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 3 2026:HHC:34 but he failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per the law.
.
3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded of not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. rt The complainant examined Sangeeta Gautam (CW1) to prove its complaint.
5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had approached the bank for the loan and the bank sanctioned a loan of ₹1,50,000/-. He admitted that he had defaulted in the repayment of the loan, and he had issued a cheque in partial discharge of his liability. He admitted that the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement 'funds insufficient' and a notice was served upon him. He stated that a case was registered against him as he had not deposited the money in time. He had deposited ₹26,000/- and sought two months to make the payment. He stated that he wanted to lead the defence evidence; however, he failed to produce the ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 4 2026:HHC:34 evidence, and the learned Trial Court closed his evidence on 30.10.2018.
.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted the taking of a loan, issuance of the cheque, its dishonour and the receipt of the notice. The accused stated that a case was made against him because he had failed to repay the amount on of time. The accused had failed to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. All the ingredients of the commission of an rt offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI were duly satisfied. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of ₹ 60,000/- which was to be paid as compensation to the complainant.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, HP (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the accused had not disputed the complainant's case in his statement ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 5 2026:HHC:34 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused claimed that he had paid ₹26,000/- to the bank, however, there was no evidence .
to prove this claim. This fact was also not suggested to the Manager of the complainant. The mere plea that the cheque was a security cheque would not help the accused because the security cheque also attracts the liability under Section 138 of of the NI Act. The learned Trial Court had imposed an adequate sentence, and no interference was required with the sentence rt imposed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision, asserting that the learned Courts below failed to properly appreciate the material placed before them. The complainant failed to prove the existence of the liability. The balance was shown as zero in the loan account (Ex.CW1/F), which falsifies the complainant's version that the accused was liable to pay money to the complainant. The complainant was required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but it failed to do so. Hence, it was prayed that the present revision be ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 6 2026:HHC:34 allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.
.
9. I have heard Mr Anirudh Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.
of
10. Mr Anirudh Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the statement of account rt produced by the bank shows a zero balance, which falsifies the complainant's version that the cheque was issued in discharge of the debt/legal liability. Learned Courts below failed to appreciate this aspect. The complainant failed to prove the advancement of the loan. Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and judgments and order passed by learned Courts below be set aside.
11. Mr Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the accused had admitted the taking of the loan, issuance of the cheque, its dishonour and the receipt of the notice in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. Learned Courts below had rightly relied upon the admission made by the accused. This ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 7 2026:HHC:34 Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
.
12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
13. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204:
(2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that a revisional rt court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed at page 207-
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error that is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 8
2026:HHC:34
14. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v.
Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688: 2023 SCC OnLine SC .
1294, wherein it was observed at page 695:
"14. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 CrPC, which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court, is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and of regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings.
rt
15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460: (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687:
(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: (SCC p. 475, paras 12-13) "12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error, and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which, upon the face of it, bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored, or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 9 2026:HHC:34 exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional .
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has of been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even the framing rt of the charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC."
15. It was held in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 544: (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 37: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 651 that it is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the absence of any perversity. It was observed at page 169:
"12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401 CrPC and the grounds for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452: 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, this Court has laid down the following: (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5)
5. ... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 10 2026:HHC:34 jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting a miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of 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 reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring of feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise amount to a gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court from the rt aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation in concluding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ..."
13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19]. This Court held that the High Court, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. The following has been laid down in para 14: (SCC p. 135) "14. ... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 11 2026:HHC:34 act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
.
The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or of where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised rt arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
16. This position was reiterated in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 13, wherein it was observed at page 205:
"16. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.
17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457, it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. The answer to the first question is, therefore, in the negative."
17. A similar view was taken in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, wherein it was observed:
::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 122026:HHC:34 "27. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings [See: Bir Singh(supra)]. This Court is of the view that it is not for .
the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GMBH, (2008) 14 SCC 457, it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere, even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction, in the of absence of a jurisdictional error.
28. 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 rt concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.
18. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. The accused admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had taken a loan of ₹1,50,000/-
and issued a cheque in partial discharge of his liability. He admitted that the cheque was dishonoured because of insufficient funds, and notice was served upon him. He stated that the case was registered against him because he had not made the payment in time. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, (1992) 3 SCC 700: 1992 SCC (Cri) 705: 1992 SCC OnLine SC 421 that the ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 13 2026:HHC:34 Courts can rely upon the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It was observed at page 742:
.
"51. That brings us to the question of whether such a statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code can constitute the sole basis for conviction. Since no oath is administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will not be evidence stricto sensu. That is why sub-section (3) says that the accused shall not render of himself liable to punishment if he gives false answers. Then comes sub-section (4), which reads:
"313. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and rt put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed."
Thus, the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section 313 can be taken into consideration in such an inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly evidence, sub-section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial. See State of Maharashtra v. R.B. Chowdhari (1967) 3 SCR 708: AIR 1968 SC 110: 1968 Cri LJ 95. This Court, in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of M.B. 1951 SCC 1060: 1953 Cri LJ 1933: AIR 1953 SC 468, held that an answer given by an accused under Section 313 examination can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by a prosecution witness. In Narain Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) 3 SCR 678: (1964) 1 Cri LJ 730, this Court held that if the accused confesses to the commission of the offence with which he is charged, the Court may, relying upon that confession, proceed to convict him. To state the exact language in which the three-Judge bench answered the question, it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant observations at pages 684-685:
::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 142026:HHC:34 "Under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the first sub-section, insofar as it is material, the Court may at any stage of the enquiry or trial and after the witnesses for the prosecution .
have been examined and before the accused is called upon for his defence shall put questions to the accused person for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. Examination under Section 342 is primarily to be directed to those matters on of which evidence has been led for the prosecution to ascertain from the accused his version or explanation, if any, of the incident which forms the subject-matter of the charge and his defence. By rt sub-section (3), the answers given by the accused may 'be taken into consideration' at the enquiry or the trial. If the accused person in his examination under Section 342 confesses to the commission of the offence charged against him the court may, relying upon that confession, proceed to convict him, but if he does not confess and in explaining circumstance appearing in the evidence against him sets up his own version and seeks to explain his conduct pleading that he has committed no offence, the statement of the accused can only be taken into consideration in its entirety." (emphasis supplied) Sub-section (1) of Section 313 corresponds to sub-section (1) of Section 342 of the old Code, except that it now stands bifurcated in two parts with the proviso added thereto clarifying that in summons cases where the presence of the accused is dispensed with, his examination under clause (b) may also be dispensed with.
Sub-section (2) of Section 313 reproduces the old sub- section (4), asd the present sub-section (3) corresponds to the old sub-section (2) except for the change necessitated on account of the abolition of the jury system. The present sub-section (4) with which we are concerned is a verbatim reproduction of the old sub-
::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 152026:HHC:34 section (3). Therefore, the aforestated observations apply with equal force."
20. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in .
Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh, (2002) 10 SCC 236: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1514: 2002 SCC OnLine SC 933, that the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used to lend credence to of the evidence led by the prosecution, but a part of such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction. It was observed at page 244: -
rt
27. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that the statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused can either be relied on in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. See Nishi Kant Jha v.
State of Bihar (1969) 1 SCC 347: AIR 1969 SC 422: (SCC pp.
357-58, para 23) "23. In this case, the exculpatory part of the statement in Exhibit 6 is not only inherently improbable but is contradicted by the other evidence. According to this statement, the injury that the appellant received was caused by the appellant's attempt to catch hold of the hand of Lal Mohan Sharma to prevent the attack on the victim. This was contradicted by the statement of the accused himself under Section 342 CrPC to the effect that he had received the injury in a scuffle with a ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 16 2026:HHC:34 herdsman. The injury found on his body when he was examined by the doctor on 13-10-1961, negatives of both these versions. Neither of these versions accounts for the profuse bleeding which led .
to his washing his clothes and having a bath in River Patro, the amount of bleeding and the washing of the bloodstains being so considerable as to attract the attention of Ram Kishore Pandey, PW 17 and asking him about the cause thereof. The bleeding was not a simple one as his clothes all got stained of with blood, as also his books, his exercise book, his belt and his shoes. More than that, the knife which was discovered on his person was found to have been stained with blood according to the report of rt the Chemical Examiner. According to the post- mortem report, this knife could have been the cause of the injuries on the victim. In circumstances like these, there being enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the statement of the appellant in Exhibit 6, the High Court had acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory part and piercing the same with the other evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant was the person responsible for the crime."
(emphasis supplied)
21. It was laid down in Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 382: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 213, that the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in so far as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering a conviction. It was observed at page 275: -
"52. It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC is upon the court. One of the main objects of ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 17 2026:HHC:34 recording a statement under this provision of the CrPC is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But once he .
does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 CrPC, insofar as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering a conviction. Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law."
of
22. This position was reiterated in Ashok Debbarma v.
State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 747: (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 417: 2014 SCC rt OnLine SC 199, and it was held that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used to lend corroboration to the statements of prosecution witnesses. It was held at page 761: -
24. We are of the view that, under Section 313 statement, if the accused admits that, from the evidence of various witnesses, four persons sustained severe bullet injuries by the firing by the accused and his associates, that admission of guilt in Section 313 statement cannot be brushed aside. This Court in State of Maharashtra v.
Sukhdev Singh [(1992) 3 SCC 700: 1992 SCC (Cri) 705 held that since no oath is administered to the accused, the statement made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC will not be evidence stricto sensu and the accused, of course, shall not render himself liable to punishment merely on the basis of answers given while he was being examined under Section 313 CrPC. But, sub-section (4) says that the answers given by the accused in response to his examination under Section 313 CrPC can be taken into consideration in such an inquiry or trial. This Court in Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat, 1951 ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 18 2026:HHC:34 SCC 1060: AIR 1953 SC 468: 1953 Cri LJ 1933 held that the answers given by the accused under Section 313 examination can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by the prosecution witness. In Narain .
Singh v. State of Punjab (1964) 1 Cri LJ 730: (1963) 3 SCR 678, this Court held that when the accused confesses to the commission of the offence with which he is charged, the court may rely upon the confession and proceed to convict him.
25. This Court in Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh (2002) 10 of SCC 236: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1514 held that: (SCC p. 244, para
27) "27. The statement made in defence by the rt accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction." In this connection, reference may also be made to the judgments of this Court in Devender Kumar Singla v.
Baldev Krishan Singla (2005) 9 SCC 15: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1185 and Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam (2007) 11 SCC 467: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 766. The abovementioned decisions would indicate that the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC for the admission of his guilt or confession as such cannot be made the sole basis for finding the accused guilty, the reason being he is not making the statement on oath, but all the same the confession or admission of guilt can be taken as a piece of evidence since the same lends credence to the evidence led by the prosecution.
26. We may, however, indicate that the answers given by the accused while examining him under Section 313, fully corroborate the evidence of PW 10 and PW 13 and hence the offences levelled against the appellant stand proved and the trial court and the High Court have rightly found him guilty for the offences under Sections 326, 436 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC."
::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 192026:HHC:34
23. Therefore, the learned Court below had rightly relied upon the statement of the accused to corroborate the testimony .
of Sangeeta Gautam (CW1).
24. It was submitted that the statement of account (Ex.CW1/F) mentions a zero balance on 6.7.2017, and no amount was due to the bank as per the statement of account. This of submission cannot be accepted. Sangeeta Gautam (CW1) stated in her cross-examination that the liability was shown as zero rt because the account was declared a non-performing asset. The amount was transferred from the main account to the NPA account, and the balance was shown as zero. This is a valid explanation, and there is nothing to doubt this explanation.
Further, the cheque was issued on 20.6.2017 and an amount of ₹1,74,627/- was due on 31.5.2017. Any subsequent payment, even if made by the accused, would not wipe out the offence. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla, (2001) 1 SCC 631, that any payment made after the cause of action had arisen would not wipe out the offence. It was observed: -
7. So far as the question of deposit of the money during the pendency of these appeals is concerned, we may state that in ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 20 2026:HHC:34 course of hearing the parties wanted to settle the matter in Court and it is in that connection, to prove the bona fides, the respondent deposited the amount covered under all the three cheques in the Court, but the complainant's counsel .
insisted that if there is going to be a settlement, then all the pending cases between the parties should be settled, which was, however not agreed to by the respondent and, therefore, the matter could not be settled. So far as the criminal complaint is concerned, once the offence is committed, any payment made subsequent thereto will not absolve the accused of the liability of criminal offence, of though in the matter of awarding of sentence, it may have some effect on the court trying the offence. But by no stretch of imagination, a criminal proceeding could be quashed on account of the deposit of money in the court or that an order rt of quashing of a criminal proceeding, which is otherwise unsustainable in law, could be sustained because of the deposit of money in this Court. In this view of the matter, the so-called deposit of money by the respondent in this Court is of no consequence.
25. Thus, no advantage can be derived from the zero-
balance shown in the statement of account.
26. It was submitted that the cheque was issued as a security at the time of taking the loan. This submission is without any basis because the accused never claimed that he had issued the cheque as security. Rather, he claimed that he had issued the cheque in partial discharge of the debt/liability. In any case, it was laid down by this Court in Hamid Mohammad Versus Jaimal Dass 2016 (1) HLJ 456, that even if the cheque is ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 21 2026:HHC:34 issued towards the security, the accused is liable. It was observed:
.
"9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist that the cheque in question was issued to the complainant as security, and on this ground, the criminal revision petition is rejected as being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, if any cheque is issued on of account of other liability, then the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 would be attracted. The court has perused the original cheque, Ext. C-1 dated 30.10.2008, placed on record. There is no recital in the rt cheque Ext. C-1, that cheque was issued as a security cheque. It is well-settled law that a cheque issued as security would also come under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. See 2016 (3) SCC page 1 titled Don Ayengia v. State of Assam & another. It is well- settled law that where there is a conflict between former law and subsequent law, then subsequent law always prevails."
27. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited 2016(10) SCC 458 that issuing a cheque towards security will also attract the liability for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was observed: -
"10. We have given due consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as the observations of this Court in Indus Airways Private Limited versus Magnum Aviation Private Limited (2014) 12 SCC 53 with reference to the explanation to Section 138 of the Act and the expression "for the discharge of any debt or other liability" occurring in Section 138 of the Act. We are of the ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 22 2026:HHC:34 view that the question of whether a post-dated cheque is for "discharge of debt or liability" depends on the nature of the transaction. If on the date of the cheque, liability or debt exists or the amount has become legally recoverable, the Section is .
attracted and not otherwise.
11. Reference to the facts of the present case clearly shows that though the word "security" is used in clause 3.1(iii) of the agreement, the said expression refers to the cheques being towards repayment of instalments. The repayment becomes due under the agreement, the moment the loan is of advanced, and the instalment falls due. It is undisputed that the loan was duly disbursed on 28th February 2002, which was prior to the date of the cheques. Once the loan was disbursed and instalments had fallen due on the date of the rt cheque as per the agreement, the dishonour of such cheques would fall under Section 138 of the Act. The cheques undoubtedly represent the outstanding liability.
12. Judgment in Indus Airways (supra) is clearly distinguishable. As already noted, it was held therein that liability arising out of a claim for breach of contract under Section 138, which arises on account of dishonour of a cheque issued, was not by itself at par with a criminal liability towards discharge of acknowledged and admitted debt under a loan transaction. Dishonour of a cheque issued for the discharge of a later liability is clearly covered by the statute in question. Admittedly, on the date of the cheque, there was a debt/liability in praesenti in terms of the loan agreement, as against the case of Indus Airways (supra), where the purchase order had been cancelled, and a cheque issued towards advance payment for the purchase order was dishonoured. In that case, it was found that the cheque had not been issued for the discharge of liability but as an advance for the purchase order, which was cancelled. Keeping in mind this fine, but the real distinction, the said judgment cannot be applied to a case of the present nature, where the cheque was for repayment of a loan instalment which had fallen due, though such a deposit of cheques towards repayment of instalments was also described as "security" in the loan agreement. In applying the judgment in Indus Airways (supra), one cannot lose sight of the ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 23 2026:HHC:34 difference between a transaction of the purchase order which is cancelled and that of a loan transaction where the loan has actually been advanced, and its repayment is due on the date of the cheque.
.
13. The crucial question to determine the applicability of Section 138 of the Act is whether the cheque represents the discharge of existing enforceable debt or liability, or whether it represents an advance payment without there being a subsisting debt or liability. While approving the views of different High Courts noted earlier, this is the of underlying principle as can be discerned from the discussion of the said cases in the judgment of this Court." (Emphasis supplied)
28. This position was reiterated in Sripati Singh v. State of rt Jharkhand, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1002: AIR 2021 SC 5732, and it was held that a cheque issued as security is not waste paper and a complaint under section 138 of the NI Act can be filed on its dishonour. It was observed:
"17. A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered 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 the 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 a presentation, if the same is ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 24 2026:HHC:34 dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of the NI Act would flow.
18. When a cheque is issued and is treated as 'security' .
towards repayment of an amount with a time period being stipulated for repayment, all that it ensures is that such a cheque, which is issued as 'security, cannot be presented prior to the loan or the instalment maturing for repayment towards which such cheque is issued as security. Further, the borrower would have the option of repaying the loan amount or such financial liability in any other form, and in of that manner, if the amount of the loan due and payable has been discharged within the agreed period, the cheque issued as security cannot thereafter be presented. Therefore, the prior discharge of the loan or there being an altered rt situation due to which there would be an understanding between the parties is a sine qua non to not present the cheque which was issued as security. These are only the defences that would be available to the drawer of the cheque in proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, there cannot be a hard and fast rule that a cheque, which is issued as security, can never be presented by the drawee of the cheque. If such is the understanding, a cheque would also be reduced to an 'on-demand promissory note', and in all circumstances, it would only be civil litigation to recover the amount, which is not the intention of the statute. When a cheque is issued even though as 'security' the consequence flowing therefrom is also known to the drawer of the cheque and in the circumstance stated above if the cheque is presented and dishonoured, the holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation."
29. The accused never disputed his liability to pay the amount; rather, he sought two months' time to pay the amount.
Therefore, the existence of liability was not disputed, and the ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 25 2026:HHC:34 complainant was entitled to present the cheque even if it was issued as security.
.
30. Sangeeta Gautam (CW1) stated that the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The accused admitted this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was proved that the cheque was of dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'.
31. rt Sangeeta Gautam (CW1) stated that the notice was issued to the accused asking him to repay the amount of ₹30,000/- within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. This notice was delivered to the accused. She exhibited the acknowledgement (Ex.CW1/E), which bears the signatures of someone. The accused admitted the receipt of the notice.
Therefore, it was proved that the notice was served upon the accused.
32. The accused did not claim that he had repaid the amount after the receipt of the notice of demand. He claimed that he had paid ₹26,000/- to the bank; however, no such entry was made in the statement of account. He did not examine any witness to prove the payment of ₹26,000/- to the complainant.
::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 262026:HHC:34 Thus, learned Courts below had rightly held that the accused had failed to prove the payment of money despite the receipt of .
notice.
33. Thus, it was duly proved on record that the accused had issued a cheque to discharge debt/liability, which was dishonoured with an endorsement, "insufficient funds", and the of accused failed to repay the amount despite the receipt of a valid notice of demand. Hence, all the ingredients of the commission rt of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act were satisfied.
34. Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 138 that the penal provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act is deterrent in nature. It was observed at page 203:
"6. The object of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to infuse credibility into negotiable instruments, including cheques, and to encourage and promote the use of negotiable instruments, including cheques, in financial transactions. The penal provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is intended ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 27 2026:HHC:34 to be a deterrent to callous issuance of negotiable instruments such as cheques without serious intention to honour the promise implicit in the issuance of the same."
.
35. Therefore, the sentence of three months is not excessive.
36. Learned Trial Court imposed a fine of ₹60,000/-. The cheque was issued on 20.6.2017. The fine was imposed on of 1.12.2018 after the lapse of one and a half years. The complainant lost the interest that it would have gained by lending the money rt to various borrowers. It had incurred the legal expenses for prosecuting the complaint before the learned Trial Court. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, (2021) 5 SCC 283: (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 25: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 555: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 75 that the Courts should uniformly levy a fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It was observed at page 291: -
19. As regards the claim of compensation raised on behalf of the respondent, we are conscious of the settled principles that the object of Chapter XVII of NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive. The provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for the dishonour of a cheque as well as civil liability for the realisation of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that there needs to be a consistent approach ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS 28 2026:HHC:34 towards awarding compensation, and unless there exist special circumstances, the courts should uniformly levy fines up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. [R. Vijayan v. Baby, (2012) 1 SCC 260, .
para 20: (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 79: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 520]"
37. The interest @9% for 18 months is ₹4,050/-. Thus, the compensation of ₹60,000/- on an amount of ₹30,000/- is not justified and is ordered to be reduced to ₹40,000/-.
of
38. No other point was urged.
39. rt In view of the above, the revision is partly allowed, and the fine amount is ordered to be reduced to ₹40,000/- from ₹60,000/-. Subject to this modification, the rest of the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are upheld.
40. A copy of this judgment along with records of the learned Courts below be transmitted forthwith.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st January, 2026 (Chander) ::: Downloaded on - 01/01/2026 20:39:31 :::CIS