In re: Cheque bounce conviction and revision petition

Timeline

1. 21 Oct 2026News

   Blank Cheque Plea Not Put to Complainant Can’t Be Raised in Revision: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Cheque Bounce Conviction

   The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a cheque bounce conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the accused’s plea that the complainant filled in the cheque could not be accepted at the revision stage, because it was never suggested to the complainant during cross-examination.

   Law Trend

   Explanation in simple terms

   What:

   A court confirmed a criminal conviction for a bounced cheque because a specific argument came too late.

   Who:

   The Himachal Pradesh High Court is the court, the complainant is the person who received the cheque, and the accused is the person convicted of the crime.

   When:

   Reported on 21 Oct 2026.

   Where:

   Himachal Pradesh High Court.

   Why:

   The court ruled that the accused could not claim a cheque was blank because they failed to ask the complainant about it during trial.

   What it means:

   The conviction stands, and the accused cannot use this specific argument to challenge the decision at this late stage.

2. 29 Jul 2026Judgment

   Himachal Pradesh High Court upholds conviction in Khushinder Singh v. Ambal Khan cheque bounce case

   The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a revision petition, noting that the accused's admission proved the dishonour of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used for re-appreciating evidence unless there is clear perversity.

   Verdictum

   Explanation in simple terms

   What:

   The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld a conviction regarding a bounced cheque.

   Who:

   Khushinder Singh is the accused, Ambal Khan is the other party, and the Himachal Pradesh High Court is the court.

   When:

   Reported on 29 Jul 2026.

   Where:

   Himachal Pradesh High Court.

   Why:

   The court found the accused admitted to the facts and decided it cannot re-examine evidence without clear errors.

   What it means:

   The court dismissed the request to review the case, meaning the conviction remains in place.