Subodh Dutta vs The State Of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:31862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1222 of 2017
------
Subodh Dutta, S/o Late Prafulla Kumar Dutta, R/o R.N.
Singh Building, Mango, C/o M.S. Reliable Enterprise Office,
Main Road, Near Petrol Pump, P.O. & P.S. – Mango, District –
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
.... …. Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Hira Prasad, S/o Late Jagnath Prasad, R/o H. No. 12/II,
Sailpatri, A Vastu Bihar Duplex Complex, Baikunth Nagar,
P.O. & P.S. – Mango, Jamshedpur, District – East
Singhbhum.
…. .... Opp. Parties
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Vaishnavi Kaushik, Advocate.
Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : None.
------
JUDGMENT

CAV On Dated- 03.09.2026 Pronounced On 30.10.2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned A.P.P. for the State. However, nobody appeared on
behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the
judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 38
of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 16.02.2016 passed

1

2026:JHHC:31862

st
by learned J.M., 1 Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.
1036 of 2013, whereby the petitioner has been held guilty
and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138
of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year
and also to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 12,50,000/-
to the complainant.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the
present petitioner approached to the complainant in the
month of December, 2010 expressing his urgent need of
money for his business and asked for a loan of Rs. 10 lakh
assuring that it will be returned by the end of December,
2012. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakh to the
accused in installments, which the accused acknowledged
by issuing receipt in presence of witnesses. It is alleged that
after expiry of the stipulated period on 01.01.2013, the
complainant demanded the loan amount and in lieu thereof
the accused issued a cheque bearing no. 391078 for Rs. 10
lakhs in favour of the complainant drawn on Axis Bank,
Bokaro Branch. The complainant presented the said cheque
through his banker for encashment through SBI, Bistupur,
Jamshedpur, which was dishonoured due to insufficient
fund and was returned with cheque return memo dated
16.03.2013. The complainant issued a legal notice through
his lawyer dated 23.03.2013 and sent through registered

2

2026:JHHC:31862

post with A/D demanding the said amount within 15 days
from the receipt of notice, but the accused did not made the
payment of aforesaid amount within stipulated period.
Hence, complainant was constrained to institute the
Complaint Case No. 1036 of 2013 for the offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. The learned trial court finding prima facie case
constituting the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
issued summons against the accused, who appeared and
contested the case denying the accusation leveled against
him and claimed to be tried.
5. The complainant himself was examined as C.W.-1 and
also relied upon following documentary evidence:-
Exhibit-1 : Original cheque no. 391078
dated 01.01.2013 for amount of
Rs. 10 Lakhs.
Exhibit-2 & 2/1 : Original cheque return memo
dated 16.03.2013 and
15.03.2013.
Exhibit-3 : Office copy of legal demand
notice.
Exhibit-4 : Original postal receipt.

6. The case of defence is denial from the alleged
transaction and plea of innocence as well as the cheque was
issued as security and not for discharge of the liability. The
amount and date on the cheque were not filled up by the
3

2026:JHHC:31862

accused. However, no oral or documentary evidence has
been adduced by the defence.
7. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, found sufficient evidence proving the
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the
petitioner held him guilty and sentenced accordingly.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conviction
and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.
38 of 2016 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,
Jamshedpur, which was also dismissed vide judgment
dated 20.06.2017, which has been assailed in this revision.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has simply raised
following grounds challenging the impugned judgment:-
(i) The acknowledgement of loan in presence of
witnesses has not been proved by any independent
witness. The learned trial court has committed serious
illegality and perversity by placing reliance upon the
sole testimony of complainant in this regard.
(ii) The cheque issued as security and not for
discharge of loan amount, which has been maliciously
filled up by the complainant and appropriated for
payment of loan amount without knowledge of the
petitioner. The petitioner never received any notice.

4

2026:JHHC:31862

Hence, the impugned judgment and order is not
legally sustainable and fit to be set aside and this revision
is liable to be allowed.
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the contention raised on
behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is no
denial on the part of the petitioner with regard to the
signature of him on the cheque. Both the courts below have
aptly analyzed and appreciated the evidence on record and
arrived at conclusion. There is concurrent finding of fact
against the petitioner and there is no merit in this revision,
which is fit to be dismissed.
11. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on
behalf of both side. It appears that the complainant has
consistently proved its case and the necessary formalities
for initiation of proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act. The defence has not been able to elicit any material to
disbelieve or cast any doubt in the prosecution case. The
filling up of the amount and date by any person itself does
not invalidate the cheque when it is properly signed by the
drawer of the cheque and also admitted. Here in this case,
there is no dispute that the cheque was issued by the
present petitioner for discharging his liability in respect of

5

2026:JHHC:31862

loan transaction entered into with the complainant. Mere
non-examination of witness to the acknowledgment of loan
does not falsify the evidence of complainant. No serious
ground has been taken in this revision showing any
perversity in the judgment of learned trial court as well as
appellate court.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held
that :
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 scrutinize the orders,
which upon the face of it bears 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 exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative.
Each case would have to be determined on its
own merits.
6

2026:JHHC:31862

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.

13. In view of above discussions and reasons, I do not find
any merit in this revision. The impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial
court and upheld by the learned appellate court needs no
interference by this Court and this criminal revision
deserves to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by
the learned appellate court is hereby affirmed.
15. In the result, this criminal revision is hereby
dismissed.
16. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond is hereby
cancelled.
17. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the
concerned Trial Court within two months from the date of
this judgment and receive the remaining period of sentence
awarded by the learned Trial Court, failing which, the
learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps in securing
the attendance of the petitioner and sending him under
proper conviction warrant to jail custody for undergoing the
remaining period of sentence awarded to him.
18. Pending I.A, if any, stand disposed of.
7

2026:JHHC:31862

19. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent to the court concerned for information and
needful.


(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 30/10/2026
Sunil/- NAFR
Uploaded On : 30 /10/2026
8