JAIPRAKASH vs SHAKUNTALA

UKHC010008352025

2026:UHC:7976
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

CRLR/34/2025


Jaiprakash
--Revisionist

Versus
Shakuntala
--Respondent


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the
revisionist.
Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, Advocate for
the respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by
the revisionist challenging the judgment &
order dated 21.08.2024 passed by learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal
Appeal No.22 of 2024, whereby the appeal
preferred by the revisionist came to be
dismissed. Revisionist has also challenged the
judgment & order dated 03.02.2024 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case
No.220 of 2020, whereby he was convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. By the
said judgment and order, the revisionist was
convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of four months and
to pay a fine of ₹ 6,10,000/-. Out of the
amount of fine so imposed, a sum of
₹ 6,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the
respondent as compensation. It was further
directed that, in default of payment of the
aforesaid fine, the revisionist shall undergo
additional simple imprisonment for a period
of two months.
3. A complaint was instituted by the

UKHC010008352025

2026:UHC:7976
respondent against the revisionist alleging,
inter alia, that the revisionist had borrowed a
sum of ₹ 5,70,000/- from her and had assured
her that the said amount would be repaid
shortly. When the respondent demanded
repayment of the aforesaid amount, the
revisionist issued Cheque No.293159 dated
08.07.2020 for a sum of ₹ 5,70,000/- in her
favour. Upon presentation, the said cheque
was dishonoured with the endorsement
“Insufficient Funds”. Consequently, the
respondent caused statutory notice under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 to be served upon the revisionist,
calling upon him to make payment of the
cheque amount within the statutory period.
Despite receipt of the said notice, the
revisionist failed to make the payment within
the prescribed period. Consequently, the
respondent instituted a complaint, which was
registered as Criminal Case No.220 of 2020.
Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, after
considering the pleadings and appreciating
the evidence adduced by the parties, vide
judgment and order dated 03.02.2024,
convicted the revisionist for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The
revisionist was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of four months and
to pay a fine of ₹ 6,10,000/-. Out of the said
amount, a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- was directed to
be paid to the respondent as compensation. It
was further directed that, in default of
payment of the fine, the revisionist shall
undergo additional simple imprisonment for a
period of two months. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid judgment and order of conviction
and sentence, the revisionist preferred a
criminal appeal. Learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, vide judgment and order dated
21.08.2024, upon re-appreciation of the
material available on record, dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by
the learned trial Court. Hence, the present

UKHC010008352025

2026:UHC:7976
criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
revisionist submits that the learned Courts
below have failed to appreciate the defence
taken by the revisionist in its correct
perspective. It is contended that the
revisionist had never issued the cheque in
question in favour of the respondent. Rather,
the cheque had allegedly been handed over to
one Ramesh and was not issued towards
discharge of any legally enforceable debt or
liability owed to the respondent. It is,
therefore, submitted that the essential
ingredients of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 were not established against the
revisionist and the conviction recorded by the
learned Courts below is unsustainable.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent submits that the defence
raised by the revisionist is wholly
unsubstantiated and has rightly been rejected
by both the Courts below. It is submitted that
the revisionist has admitted his signature on
the cheque in question, which admittedly
bears the name of the respondent as the
payee. Once the execution and signature on
the cheque are admitted, the statutory
presumptions arising under Sections 118 and
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
operate in favour of the holder of the cheque.
The burden, therefore, lay upon the
revisionist to rebut the said presumptions by
raising a probable defence. However, the
revisionist failed to adduce any cogent or
reliable evidence to establish that the cheque
had been issued to Ramesh and was
subsequently misused by the respondent. It
is thus submitted that no error whatsoever
has been committed by the learned Courts
below in recording the conviction.
6. This Court has considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and has carefully perused the
judgments passed by the learned Courts

UKHC010008352025

2026:UHC:7976
below as well as the material available on
record. At the outset, it is well settled that the
jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of
revisional powers is supervisory and limited
in nature. This Court does not ordinarily re-
appreciate or re-weigh the evidence merely
because another view may be possible.
Interference with concurrent findings of fact
is warranted only where the findings recorded
by the Courts below are shown to be perverse,
manifestly erroneous, based on no evidence,
or suffer from patent illegality, material
irregularity or jurisdictional error resulting in
miscarriage of justice.
7. In the present case, the principal
defence of the revisionist is that the cheque in
question was not issued in favour of the
respondent but had been handed over to one
Ramesh and was thereafter misused by the
respondent. The said defence, however,
remains a mere assertion unsupported by any
cogent or convincing evidence. The revisionist
has admitted his signature on the cheque in
question. The cheque admittedly bears the
name of the respondent as the payee. In such
circumstances, the statutory presumptions
contemplated under Sections 118 and 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise in
favour of the respondent. The said
presumptions, though rebuttable, could be
displaced by the revisionist only by bringing
on record material sufficient to establish a
probable defence. Learned trial Court
specifically considered the question as to
whether the cheque in question had been
issued by the revisionist in favour of the
respondent and, after considering the oral
and documentary evidence available on
record, returned a categorical finding against
the revisionist. Learned Appellate Court,
while exercising its appellate jurisdiction,
independently examined the matter and
concurred with the findings recorded by the
learned trial Court.
8. No material has been brought before
this Court to demonstrate that the findings

UKHC010008352025

2026:UHC:7976
recorded by the learned Courts below suffer
from perversity or are contrary to the
evidence on record. Merely taking a plea that
the cheque had been issued to a third person,
without producing any reliable evidence in
support thereof, cannot by itself be treated as
sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption
under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The revisionist has failed to
establish any circumstances from which it
can reasonably be inferred that the cheque
was not issued towards discharge of a legally
enforceable debt or liability owed to the
respondent.
9. It is also significant that the revisionist
has not been able to point out any material
contradiction, omission or infirmity in the
evidence relied upon by the learned Courts
below. The findings recorded by the learned
trial Court, and subsequently affirmed by the
learned Appellate Court, are founded upon
proper appreciation of the evidence and are
supported by cogent reasons. This Court, in
exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction,
finds no compelling circumstance warranting
interference with such concurrent findings.
10. Having regard to the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the considered view that the revisionist has
failed to establish any illegality, perversity,
material irregularity or jurisdictional error in
the judgment and order passed by the
learned Courts below. The conviction of the
revisionist for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 is, therefore, not liable to be
interfered with.
11. Consequently, the present criminal
revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
03.09.2026

Arpan

ARPAN
JAISWAL
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20
dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB
987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.09.03 17:37:10 +05'30'