Ramesh Alias Ramesh Kumar vs Sanjay

CRR No.2582 of 2026 -1-
S. No.128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.2582 of 2026
Date of Decision:02.11.2026
Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar .....Petitioner
Vs.
Sanjay .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated
30.09.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No.683 of 2025 – Ramesh Vs. Sanjay,
vide which appeal instituted against the judgment dated 17.10.2025 and order of
sentence dated 18.10.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Bhiwani in Criminal Complaint No.7300 of 2019 has been dismissed vide which
revisionist was held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as `Act’) and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year besides payment of fine
of Rs.4 lakhs. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months’.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone
through the material on file.
3. As per version of complainant, accused approached him on
15.06.2018 and demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for his personal requirements on
which was advanced to him on 20.06.2018. In September, 2019, complainant
RENU
2026.11.03 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No.2582 of 2026 -2-
asked the accused to repay the amount. In discharge of his afore-said liability,
accused issued cheque bearing No.886577 dated 13.10.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-
drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vaish Sr. Sec. School, Bhiwani, account
bearing No.11692191002374 in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the
cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds vide bank return memo dated
18.11.2019. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice to the accused through his
counsel on 28.11.2019 calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days
but accused neither replied the notice nor paid the amount which necessitated the
present complaint.
4. After preliminary evidence was led, accused was summoned to face
the trial for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act vide order dated 18.12.2019.
5. In support of his case, complainant examined himself as CW1 and
also tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence. Thereafter,
statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which the entire
incriminating material was put to him which was denied by him to be wrong and
he pleaded innocence. In defence, accused tendered document Mark D1 and
closed his evidence.
6. After hearing 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 has also been dismissed and feeling aggrieved, present revision petition
has been instituted.
7. It is well settled that the powers of High Court to re-appreciate
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
RENU
2026.11.03 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No.2582 of 2026 -3-
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.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgments
passed by both the Courts below are erroneous and the facts of the case and
evidence on file have not been appreciated in correct perspective. Learned
counsel contended that infact the complainant had engaged the accused –
petitioner to carry out electricity job work at his home but he had obtained one
blank security cheque to ensure quality of the said work. He had completed the
work ensuring best quality but thereafter, the complainant has misused the said
security cheque and infact, no loan was ever taken by him. Learned counsel next
contended that the complainant has also failed to prove the source from where he
had arranged the amount which was allegedly advanced to the petitioner- accused
and he prayed that the judgments passed by the Courts below be set aside and
RENU
2026.11.03 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No.2582 of 2026 -4-
accused be acquitted of the notice of accusation for the offence under Section 138
of NI Act.
9. However, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner and revision in hand is liable to be dismissed for the
reasons discussed hereinafter.
10. It is not in dispute that the cheque Ex.C1 bears signatures of accused
and same was presented by the complainant for encashment within the stipulated
period of its validity and it was dishonored due to insufficient funds vide bank
memo dated 18.11.2019 Ex.C2. Thereafter, legal notice dated 28.11.2019 Ex.C3
was issued to the accused within the stipulated period but accused neither replied
the notice nor made the payment and thereafter, the complaint in hand was
instituted within the prescribed period of limitation.
11. Stand of accused is that he had done electricity job work at the house
of complainant and in order to ensure the quality of work, the complainant had
obtained the blank signed cheque from him which has been subsequently misused.
However, such a defence taken by the accused is highly improbable. There was
no business transaction between the complainant and the accused on account of
which the complainant might have obtained the blank signed security cheque. It
is highly improbable and unbelievable that the accused would have issued a blank
signed cheque only to ensure that the quality of the work being done by him at the
house of complainant was upto the mark or good. Such a practice of obtaining
security cheques from people who are engaged to do some job is unheard of.
Moreover, accused has not specified the dates on which he had been engaged to
do the job work and when the blank signed cheque was obtained from him. The
absence of such material particulars certainly renders the defence taken by the
RENU
2026.11.03 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No.2582 of 2026 -5-
accused to be highly improbable. Rather, once accused has admitted his
signatures on the cheque in question, presumption under Section 118 of the Act
can safely be raised in favour of the complainant to the effect that the cheque had
been issued by the drawer for consideration and in discharge of his existing debt
or liability. Though the said presumption is rebutable yet the onus lay upon the
accused to rebut the same but except the bald version taken by the accused, no
evidence has been led to rebut the same. Moreover, accused has not led any
evidence on file to establish that he was ever engaged by the complainant to do
electricity work job at his house or he was compelled to issue the security cheque.
In addition to this, no complaint was ever made by the accused to any authority to
the effect that the cheque has been misused by the complainant. In case, the
cheque issued by the accused had been misused, he would have certainly made a
complaint against the complainant. It is also not his case that he ever demanded
the cheque back from the complainant and all these factors thus render the
version of the accused to be unbelievable and highly improbable. As such, the plea
raised by the accused appears to be nothing but a baseless and improbable ground
of defence and is not sufficient to rebut the presumption attached to a cheque
issued in due course.
12. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
complainant has failed to prove his financial capacity and as such, advancement of
loan becomes doubtful is also without any force. A perusal of the judgment
passed by the trial Court shows that no such plea was ever raised and decided by
the learned trial Court and this plea has been raised for the first time in appeal. In
case, the defence would have brought on record credible material challenging the
financial competence of the complainant, only in that eventuality, the complainant
RENU
2026.11.03 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR No.2582 of 2026 -6-
would have been called upon to discharge the burden of proving his financial
capacity else the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act will fail. Even
otherwise, a mere suggestion challenging the financial competence of the
complainant is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the
Act, the burden of which always remains upon the accused.
13. Notice Ex.C3 was also served upon the accused within the stipulated
period which was dispatched at his correct address. It is not the stand of accused
that he was not residing at the given address and as such, it shall be assumed that
the notice had been delivered to the accused/ addressee. However, he did not
make the payment within the stipulated period and thus committed an offence
under Section 138 of NI Act.
14. 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
too has been followed while deciding the complaint and the findings are supported
by cogent and convincing evidence and the impugned judgments 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)
Judge
November 02, 2026
renu
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RENU
2026.11.03 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document