MADHAB CHANDRA PATRA vs RAJEN KUMAR SAHU
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
,
CRLREV No.430 of 2018
(CNR No. ODHC010277942018)
In the matter of an application under Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
…
Madhab Chandra Patra Petitioner
…
-versus-
1. Rajen Kumar Sahu
2. State of Odisha
Opp. Parties
…
Advocate(s) Appeared in this case
-
For Petitioner Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak,
Advocate
-
For Opp. Parties Mr. C.R. Swain,
Addl. Govt. Adv. for O.P.2
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 28.10.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the
Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing
the judgment dated 23.03.2018 passed by the
nd
learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in
Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2016 affirming the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated
18.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Juridical Magistrate, Rourkela in ICC Case No.225 of
2014 (Trial No.17 of 2015) qua the Petitioner for
CRLREV No.430/2018 Page 1 of 4
commission of offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Hereinafter
referred to as “N.I. Act”), sentencing him to undergo
S.I. for a period of three months and pay
compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Twenty Five Thousand), in default, to undergo S.I.
for a period of one month.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that both the Courts below have failed to take into
account the specific stand of the Petitioner-accused
that a substantial sum was paid and, in this context,
he relies on the evidence of D.W.1, the Customer
Relation Officer of S.B.I., Chhend, Rourkela as well
as that of D.W.2, the wife of the complainant.
4. It is apt to note that, on a perusal of the
evidence of D.W.1, it is seen that he has deposed
that amounts of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.14,850/-,
Rs.45,000/- and Rs.19,800/-, totaling Rs.1,19,650/-,
were deposited in cash.
5. Referring to the evidence of D.W.2, who is
none other than the wife of the complainant, more
particularly, paragraph-2 thereof, learned counsel for
the Petitioner submits that such part payment is
CRLREV No.430/2018 Page 2 of 4
fortified and, taking note of the same, the
appreciation of evidence on record by the learned
Courts below is perverse, warranting interference by
this Court, notwithstanding the contours of exercise
of revisional jurisdiction.
6. On a close scrutiny, this Court is not able to
persuade itself to agree with such submission.
For convenience of reference, and being
conscious of the limits of exercise of revisional
jurisdiction, this Court quotes paragraph-2 of the
examination-in-chief of D.W.2;
“It is false to say the said deposit of money was
towards the discharge of liability by the accused
and that though the entire debt was
discharged, yet my husband did not return the
cheque to the accused, instead lodged a false
case against him. It is also false to say that
since the debt has already been cleared, there
remains no liability and that my husband has
initiated a false prosecution against the accused
and that I am deposing falsehood.”
7. On a bare perusal of the same, it is seen
that while acknowledging the deposit of the amount
in terms of the deposition of D.W.1, D.W.2 does not
support the stand of the accused that there was no
subsisting debt when the cheque was issued.
CRLREV No.430/2018 Page 3 of 4
8. Exercise of jurisdiction relating to section
138 of the N.I. Act has been set at rest by the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjabij
Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar , 2025 SCC Online SC
2069 .
9. This Court, on a perspicuous analysis of the
evidence on record in the light of the aforementioned
judgment in case of Sanjabi Tari (Supra) , does not
find any merit to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit
stands dismissed.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 28 October, 2026/Basu
29.10.2026/Uploaded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK
Designation: Addl. Dy. Registrar-cum-Addl. Principal Secy
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 29-Oct-2026 19:21:50
CRLREV No.430/2018 Page 4 of 4