Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Sunil Kumar (accused) filed Revision No. 534 of 2024 against the judgment dated 30.04.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, which upheld the conviction dated 13.07.2023 and sentence dated 25.08.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie.
  • Respondent: State Bank of India (SBI), a body corporate constituted under the SBI Act, acting as complainant for a home loan of ₹6,00,000 advanced on 28.09.2015.
  • The accused failed to repay the loan; a cheque of ₹5,95,000 was issued on 01.05.2018, dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. A statutory notice was served, but the accused did not pay within the prescribed 15‑day period.
  • Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposing six months simple imprisonment and a compensation of ₹6,50,000.
  • The accused appealed; the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, holding the presumption attached to the cheque was valid and the sentence not excessive.
  • In the revision, the accused argued lack of authority of the complainant’s witness (Sunil Sharma, CW1) and alleged procedural defects in filing the complaint.
  • The Court examined extensive jurisprudence on revisional jurisdiction (Section 397 CrPC) and the limited scope of a revisional court, citing Supreme Court decisions: Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, among others.
  • The Court also considered statutory provisions on the authority of SBI branch managers to file complaints and sign vakalatnamas, referencing SBI General Regulations 76 & 77 and supporting case law (e.g., SBI v. Kashmir Art Printing Press, SBI v. Indian Utility Products).
  • The presumption under Section 139 NI Act that a dishonoured cheque is issued for consideration was upheld; the accused failed to produce any evidence to rebut it, as required by Sumeti Vij v. Paramount Tech Fab Industries.
  • The memo of dishonour was accepted as correct under Section 146 NI Act, with the burden on the accused to rebut, per Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore.
  • The Court noted that the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC was not substantive evidence and could not be used to defeat the presumption.
  • Payment history showed only ₹24,000 paid out of ₹6,00,000, with a due amount of ₹5,95,919.39 as of 30.04.2018.
  • The Court rejected the argument that the complaint was filed by an unauthorised person, confirming that the branch manager had authority under the SBI Act and the relevant regulations.

Final Outcome

  • The revision is dismissed; the conviction, six‑month simple imprisonment, and compensation of ₹6,50,000 remain in force.
  • All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
  • The record of the lower courts is to be returned with a copy of the judgment.

Topics: Legal Presumption, Revisional Jurisdiction, Banking Complaint