Mahipal Singh vs Ranbir Singh And Anr

CRR-2610-2026 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
126
CRR-2610-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2026
MAHIPAL SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
RANBIR SINGH AND ANR ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate with
Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
CRM-45889-2026
Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
filed for condonation of delay of 757 days in filing the revision petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
Delay of 757 days in filing the revision petition.
CRR-2610-2026
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated
02.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, vide which
the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated
20.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 21.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jhajjar, in Criminal Complaint No. COMA-70 of 2017,
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRR-2610-2026 (O&M)

- 2 -

titled Ranbir Singh Vs. M/s Shri Shyam Sunder Developers Pvt. Ltd & Anr , was
dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned Trial Court were upheld, whereby the petitioner was held guilty and
convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 ( for short the Act ), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years besides payment of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- under
Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone
through the material on file
3. Brief facts of the complaint are that accused-Shri Shyam Sunder
Developers Private Ltd. planned to develop a township and the said company
through its Director Mahipal Singh-accused No.2 is the in-charge and responsible
for the business of accused No.1. The company desired to develop a township on
10 acres of land at Jhajjar in Sector 20 in collaboration with M/s Soni Realtors
Pvt. Ltd. and agreed to allot 300 Sq. yards plot in the said township to complainant
against the amount received from him. However, accused No.2 failed to develop
the proposed township and to allot plot to the complainant against the payment
made by him. Accused Mahipal Singh, who is Director of the said company is also
its authorized signatory and he in order to discharge his legally enforceable
liability issued cheque dated 31.12.2016 for Rs.30 lakhs in favour of complainant
drawn on Corporation bank, Sector 27, Sushant Lok Branch, Gurgaon, which was
duly signed by him. Complainant presented the cheque for encashment with its
banker, Indian Bank, Rohtak Road Jhajjar but the said cheque was dishonoured
due to insufficient funds, vide bank memo dated 03.01.2017. Thereafter,
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRR-2610-2026 (O&M)

- 3 -

complainant issued legal notice dated 09.02.2017 to the accused through his
counsel but despite service of notice, accused neither replied to the notice nor paid
the amount which necessitated the present complaint.
4. Complainant led preliminary evidence and accused was summoned to
face the trial vide order dated 07.09.2017.
5. Notice of accusation for the offence under Section 138 of the Act was
served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
6. Complainant in support of his case has stepped into the witness-box
as CW5 and tendered affidavit Ex. CW5/A, reiterating the facts mentioned in the
complaint. Complainant also examined CW2-Raj Singh who stated that the
cheque dated 03.01.2017 was checked by bank for signatory’s signature and other
details. Complainant also examined CW3-Dinesh Kumar, who produced the bank
account details.
7. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded,
wherein entire incriminating material was put to him, which was denied by him
and he pleaded false implication. He stated that his son namely Vikas Chahar was
Additional Director in the company, who has misused the cheques in order to
extort money from him. Accused also led in evidence document Ex. D1.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, accused was held guilty
and convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. The appeal
filed by the revisionist was also dismissed and feeling aggrieved, present revision
petition has been instituted.
9. It is well settled that the powers of High Court to re-appreciate
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRR-2610-2026 (O&M)

- 4 -

evidence in a criminal revision are very limited and the Court generally cannot re-
examine the evidence as the Appellate Court does. Revisional power can be
exercised only to ensure the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders
passed by the trial Magistrate and to prevent gross miscarriage of justice, such as a
patent error of law or procedure or a perverse finding of fact. The High Court can
re-appreciate the evidence only to correct blatant procedural flaws or manifest
errors of law which may have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, not simply
because a different view of the evidence is possible. The High Court has
jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C as a supervisory power to examine the
record of any inferior criminal Court to satisfy itself about the legality,
correctness, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. It is also well settled
that interference in a revision petition is warranted only when the decision is
grossly erroneous, in non-compliance with the provisions of law, based on a
finding of fact which is not supported by evidence or if the judgment is perverse
or arbitrary.
10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention that the following
ingredients are required to be proved for establishing a case under Section 138 of
the Act:-
a) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained
by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to
another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt
or other liability;
b) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of
six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of
its validity, whichever is earlier;
c) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRR-2610-2026 (O&M)

- 5 -

amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient
to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be
paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
d) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a
demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a
notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the
receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of
the cheque as unpaid;
e) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said
amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
11. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the
cheque Ex.C5 bears signatures of accused and accused has admitted his signatures
on the same. It is also established from the evidence on file that the cheque was
presented for encashment within the stipulated period of its validity and it stood
dishonoured due to insufficient funds, vide bank memo dated 03.01.2017.
Thereafter, legal notice 09.02.2017 Ex. CW2/B was issued to the accused calling
upon him to pay the amount within 15 days but there was no response and
thereafter, the present complaint has been instituted within the prescribed period
of limitation. As such, it is not in dispute that the cheque was issued by the
accused being authorized signatory of the company. The cheque was presented
within the period of its validity and was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. It is
also established from the testimony of CW4 and CW5, who categorically stated
that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs was paid to accused on 05.06.2015, as the price of the
plot to be allotted to the complainant. The said amount was paid to the company
i.e. accused No.1 and it must have been reflected in its own records and in case,
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRR-2610-2026 (O&M)

- 6 -

the accused had not received the payment, it should have produced its own records
to prove that no such payment was made or that the cheque was not issued in
discharge of any existing debt or liability. In these circumstances, mere non-
mentioning of details or mode of payment by complainant to the accused company
is not fatal to the complainant’s case.
12. Another plea has been raised that the amount was advanced in the
year 2012 and it could have been recovered upto the year 2015 and since the
amount had become time barred, there was no legally enforceable debt which
could be recovered on the basis of cheque dated 31.12.2016.
13. However, the complainant had paid the amount to the accused
company for purchasing a plot as the accused company was developing a
township and the cheque was issued when the accused failed to develop the
township and that too in discharge of existing debt or liability. As such, the period
of limitation in this case shall be counted from the date of issuance of cheque and
not from the date when complainant had deposited the amount. Even otherwise, a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding CRA-AS-249-2023, vide
judgment dated 08.15.2023, M/s Maharia Automobiles Vs. Anil Kumar has held
that once cheque is drawn for discharge of time barred debt, it creates a promise,
which becomes an enforceable contract and therefore, it cannot be said that cheque
is drawn in discharge of debt or liability, which is not legally enforceable.
11. As a result of afore-said discussion, I am of the considered opinion
that the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have appreciated the facts of
the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while holding him guilty
and convicting him for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Proper procedure
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRR-2610-2026 (O&M)

- 7 -

too has been followed while deciding the complaint and the findings are supported
by cogent and convincing reasons. The impugned judgments thus do not suffer
from any illegality, or impropriety much less perversity and the same are not liable
to be interfered with. Resultantly, the revision in hand is dismissed.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
03.11.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.11.11 19:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment