Uma Shankar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:31879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 938 of 2017
------
Uma Shankar Singh, Son of Sri Jagarnath Singh, resident of
Village – New Bishunpur, P.O. – B. Polytechnic, P.S. & District
- Dhanbad.
.... …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Anil Kumar Sharma, S/o Sri Janak Singh, R/O Village –
Jai Prakash Nagar, Gali No. 4, P.O. + P.S. & District –
Dhanbad – 826001.
…. .... Opp. Parties
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate.
------
JUDGMENT
CAV On Dated- 01.09.2026 Pronounced On 30.10.2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the
judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2017,
whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed
the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 10.01.2017 passed by learned J.M.,
st
1 Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1518 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 six months and also to pay
compensation amount of Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant.
1
2026:JHHC:31879
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the
complainant was in friendly relationship with the appellant,
who used to frequently visit his house. Sometime in
December, 2012, the appellant requested the complainant
for an amount of Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs as loan for purchasing
land. The complainant somehow raised the funds and paid
Rs. 4 Lakhs to the appellant in presence of witnesses and
requested him to return the money at the earliest. At the
time of taking the money, appellant had issued a cheque of
Rs. 4 Lakh, which was post-dated of 30.04.2013 and when
the appellant deposited the cheque in the Bank on
10.05.2013, the same was returned with a memo that the
cheque could not be encashed due to insufficient funds in
the account. The complainant gave a legal notice to the
appellant, but he did not return the due amount within 15
days and when the amount was not returned, the
complainant filed C.P. Case No. 1518 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.
2
2026:JHHC:31879
5. The complainant in support of its case has examined
altogether three witnesses namely, C.W.-1 Anil Kumar
Sharma (Complainant himself), C.W. -2 Rishikesh Sharma
and C.W.-3 Janak Sharma and also relied upon following
documentary evidence:-
Exhibit-1 : Original Cheque.
Exhibit-2 : Cheque Deposit Slip.
Exhibit-3 : Cheque Return Memo.
Exhibit-4 : Legal Notice.
Exhibit-5 : Postal Slip.
Exhibit-6 : Signature of complainant in
complainant notice.
6. On the other hand, the defence has examined one
witness namely, Prabhat Kumar (D.W.-1). However, no
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.
25 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad,
which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 29.03.2017,
which has been assailed in this revision.
3
2026:JHHC:31879
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the cheque was never issued by the petitioner for any
legally enforceable debt or liability and no debt or liability to
be discharged by the petitioner has been proved in this
case. It is further submitted that no demand notice was
sent as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act. 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 assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.
2 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. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it would
be relevant to reproduce the certain statutory provisions of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 reads as under:
4
2026:JHHC:31879
“ 118. Presumptions as to negotiable
instruments .—Until the contrary is proved, the
following presumptions shall be made:—
(a) of consideration :—that every negotiable
instrument was made or drawn for consideration,
and that every such instrument, when it has been
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was
accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for
consideration;
(b) as to date :—that every negotiable
instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on
such date;
(c) as to time of acceptance :—that every
accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a
reasonable time after its date and before its
maturity;
(d) as to time of transfer :—that every transfer
of a negotiable instrument was made before its
maturity;
(e) as to order of indorsements :—that the
indorsements appearing upon a negotiable
instrument were made in the order in which they
appear thereon;
(f) as to stamp :— that a lost promissory note,
bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
(g) that holder is a holder in due course :—
that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a
holder in due course: provided that, where the
instrument has been obtained from its lawful
owner, or from any person in lawful custody
thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has
been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof
by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful
consideration, the burden of proving that the
holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.”
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
reads as under:
“ Section 138. Dishonour of cheque for
insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account .
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a banker for
payment of any amount of money to another
person from out of that account for the discharge,
in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability,
is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of
the amount of money standing to the credit of
5
2026:JHHC:31879
that 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
that bank, such person shall be deemed to have
committed an offence and shall, without prejudice
to any other provision of this Act, be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may be
extended to two years, or with fine which may
extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with
both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section
shall apply unless--
(a) the 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;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque, as the case may be, 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 thirty days of the receipt of
information by him from the bank regarding the
return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the
payment of the said amount of money to the
payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due
course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the
receipt of the said notice.”
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,
“debt or other liability” means a legally
enforceable debt or other liability.
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
reads as under:
“ 139. Presumption in favour of holder .—It
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved,
that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of
the nature referred to in section138 for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability.”
Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 reads
as under:
6
2026:JHHC:31879
“ 142. Cognizance of offences .—(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—
(a) no court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under section 138 except
upon a complaint, in writing, made by the
payee or, as the case may be, the holder in
due course of the cheque;
(b) such complaint is made within one
month of the date on which the cause of
action arises under clause (c) of the proviso
to section 138:
Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may
be taken by the Court after the prescribed period,
if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had
sufficient cause for not making a complaint
within such period;
(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan
Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the
first class shall try any offence punishable
under section 138.
(2) The offence under section 138 shall be
inquired into and tried only by a court within
whose local jurisdiction,—
(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through
an account, the branch of the bank where the
payee or holder in due course, as the case may
be, maintains the account, is situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the
payee or holder in due course, otherwise through
an account, the branch of the drawee bank where
the drawer maintains the account, is situated.
Explanation.— For the purposes of clause (a),
where a cheque is delivered for collection at any
branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due
course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have
been delivered to the branch of the bank in which
the payee or holder in due course, as the case
may be, maintains the account.
12. As per the allegations made in the complaint petition,
a cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of the
complainant for the liability of payment of amount of
Rs. 4,00,000/-, which was given by the complainant /
7
2026:JHHC:31879
opposite party no. 2 to the petitioner as friendly loan in the
month of December, 2012 and assured to be returned by
30.04.2013. The complainant deposited the said cheque
with his banker on 10.05.2013, but the same was
dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund and was returned
with cheque return memo dated 13.05.2013. Thereafter, on
21.05.2013, a demand notice was sent by registered post to
the petitioner, but the amount was not repaid nor the
notice was replied. At last, on 12.06.2013, the complaint
was filed with specific averment made in complaint of
sending the demand notice by registered post.
13. After enquiry, cognizance of the offence under Section
138 of the N.I. Act was taken. Despite receiving the
summons, the petitioner did not choose to repay and return
the cheque amount. The object of issuing the demand
notice before filing the complaint is to give an opportunity
to the issuer of the cheque.
14. In view of the oral as well as documentary evidence,
the prosecution case is proved beyond all reasonable doubt
and the presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. Act also
arises in favour of the complainant / opposite party no. 2 in
regard to the consideration of the cheque, at the time of
acceptance of cheque and also the time of transfer of the
cheque.
8
2026:JHHC:31879
15. Likewise, the presumption under Section 139 of the
N.I. Act also be taken in favour of the complainant /
opposite party no. 2 that the holder of the cheque received
the cheque of the nature referred under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or
other liability. The presumption under Sections 118 and
139 of the N.I. Act both are rebuttable presumption.
16. The complainant / opposite party no. 2 and his
witnesses have fully supported the case and the documents
have also been proved. Meaning thereby, the petitioner
(drawer) has also not disputed his signature on the said
cheque. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence and
also did not rebut the presumption under law. Original
Cheque and Cheque Return Memo are marked as Exhibit-1
& 3 respectively.
17. 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,
9
2026:JHHC:31879
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.
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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. In the result, this criminal revision is dismissed.
21. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond is hereby
cancelled.
10
2026:JHHC:31879
22. 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.
23. Pending I.A, if any, stand disposed of.
24. 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
11