The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ₹14,00,000 and issued a cheque dated 27.09.2007 which was dishonoured for insufficient funds; the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the Appellate Court acquitted him on grounds of double presentation of the cheque and the complainant's alleged lack of financial capacity to lend such a sum. The Himachal Pradesh High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, examined whether the Appellate Court erred in acquitting the accused. The High Court noted that successive cheque presentations and notices are permissible under the NI Act per the Supreme Court's ruling in MSR Leathers (2013) 1 SCC 177, which overruled Sadanandan Bhadran. However, the court also found that the complainant's financial capacity to advance ₹14,00,000 was rendered doubtful in cross-examination (accounts held only ₹1.5 lakh; vehicle sale proceeds of ₹3–3.5 lakh being insufficient), thereby rebutting the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Since Section 401(3) CrPC bars the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction in revision, the court was constrained to consider remitting the matter rather than directly restoring the conviction.