the Himachal Pradesh High Court pronounced its order in a long-running cheque bounce dispute. The criminal revision filed by Sohan Lal was dismissed, bringing a near nine-year-old litigation to a close. The court made it clear that revisional powers are not meant to reopen settled facts, especially when two courts below have spoken in one voice.
Background
The case arose from a ₹2.5 lakh cheque issued by Sohan Lal to Jagdish Kumar Sharma, which bounced due to “funds insufficient” back in 2016. Despite receiving a legal demand notice, the amount was not repaid. The trial court convicted Sohan Lal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act this law deals with cheque dishonour and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment along with ₹5 lakh as compensation.
An appeal before the Sessions Court failed. The conviction and sentence were affirmed, pushing the accused to approach the High Court in revision.
Court’s Observations
Hearing the matter, Justice Rakesh Kainthla underlined the limited scope of revision.
“The revisional court is not an appellate court,” the bench observed, stressing that it can interfere only where there is a glaring legal error or perversity.
The accused had admitted his signature on the cheque but claimed it was lost and misused. The court found this defence unconvincing. As the judge noted in substance, once the signature is admitted, the law presumes the cheque was issued to repay a debt, unless strong evidence shows otherwise. No such evidence was produced.
On the issue of notice, the court relied on postal records and held that service was duly proved.
The argument that the complaint was filed prematurely was also rejected, with the court remarking that the timeline under the law had been correctly followed.
Decision
Finding no illegality or miscarriage of justice, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The conviction under Section 138, the one-year sentence, and the compensation order were left untouched.
With this, the court drew the curtain on the case, reaffirming that cheque bounce laws are meant to protect trust in everyday financial dealings.
Case Title: Sohan Lal v. Jagdish Kumar Sharma
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2025
Date of Decision: 20 December 2025
Advocates
- For Petitioner: Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate
- For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate