RAMESH SINGH NAGARKOTI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010147692026

2026:UHC:8035

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


CRLR/646/2026


Ramesh Singh Nagarkoti
--Revisionist

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Ms. Suraiya Naaz, Advocate for the

revisionist.
Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. The Criminal Revision has been filed by the
revisionist challenging the judgment & order dated
17.07.2026 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
District Almora in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2023,
whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist
came to be dismissed. Revisionist has also
challenged the judgment & order dated 02.12.2023
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
District Almora in Criminal Case No.66 of 2023
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 one
year and to pay a fine of ₹ 2,20,000/-. Out of the
amount of fine so imposed, a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/-
was directed to be paid to respondent no.2 as
compensation, while the remaining sum of
₹ 20,000/- was directed to be deposited in the State
Treasury. It was further directed that, in default of
payment of the aforesaid fine, the revisionist shall
undergo additional simple imprisonment for a
period of three months.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that
respondent no.2 was well acquainted with the
revisionist. Respondent no.2 informed the
revisionist that he had obtained a loan from the
State Bank of India and that an amount of
approximately ₹ 6,00,000/- remained outstanding
against him, which the bank was demanding to be

UKHC010147692026

2026:UHC:8035

repaid. Taking advantage of the said situation, the
revisionist represented to respondent no.2 that he
had good connections with the officials of the State
Bank of India and assured him that, if an amount
of ₹ 2,00,000/- was provided to him for being
deposited with the bank, he would get the
remaining outstanding amount waived. Believing
the aforesaid representation, respondent no.2
handed over to the revisionist a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/-
on 28.10.2022, comprising ₹ 1,00,000/- through
cheque and ₹ 1,00,000/- in cash. Subsequently,
when the bank again issued a recovery certificate to
respondent no.2, he confronted the revisionist in
respect thereof. Thereupon, the revisionist issued a
cheque for a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- in favour of
respondent no.2. Upon presentation of the said
cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured
and returned unpaid with the endorsement
“Insufficient Funds”. Thereafter, respondent no.2
issued the statutory notice contemplated under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act calling upon the
revisionist to make payment of the cheque amount
within the prescribed period. Despite service of the
statutory notice, the revisionist failed to make
payment of the cheque amount within the
stipulated period. Consequently, respondent no.2
instituted a complaint, which was registered as
Criminal Case No.66 of 2023. Upon consideration of
the evidence and material available on record,
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Almora,
vide judgment and order dated 02.12.2023,
convicted the revisionist for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced
him as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by the said
judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the
revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2023
before the learned Sessions Judge, District Almora.
The learned Appellate Court, upon re-appraisal of
the material available on record, dismissed the
appeal vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2026
and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded
by learned trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal
Revision.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist
submits that learned Courts below have failed to
appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. It
is contended that respondent no.2 failed to
establish that any legally enforceable debt or
liability was due and payable by the revisionist and,
therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were not made
out. It is further submitted that the cheque in
question was a blank signed cheque which had

UKHC010147692026

2026:UHC:8035

been handed over by the revisionist to one Kuldeep
Bisht, and the same was subsequently misused.
According to learned counsel, respondent no.2
himself filled in the particulars of the cheque and
presented the same for encashment. It is also
submitted that the handwriting appearing on the
body of the cheque is different from the signature of
the revisionist. On these grounds, it is contended
that the findings recorded by the learned Courts
below are perverse and suffer from illegality and
material irregularity and, therefore, warrant
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports
the judgments passed by the learned Courts below
and submits that the revisionist has admitted his
signature on the cheque in question. It is contended
that, once the signature on the cheque is admitted,
the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a)
and 139 of the N.I. Act operate in favour of the
holder of the cheque. The revisionist has failed to
rebut the said presumptions by leading any cogent
or reliable evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that
the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court
and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court calls
for no interference.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. It is not in dispute that the
cheque in question bears the admitted signature of
the revisionist. The principal defence raised by the
revisionist is that although the cheque bears his
signature, the other particulars therein were filled
in by someone else and that the cheque was
subsequently misused by respondent no.2. The said
contention, by itself, does not come to the aid of the
revisionist. Once the execution of the cheque is
admitted or the signature thereon is admitted, the
statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and
139 of the N.I. Act come into play. The presumption
under Section 139 is that the cheque was received
by the holder, wholly or in part, in discharge of any
debt or other legally enforceable liability. The said
presumption is rebuttable; however, the accused is
required to raise a probable defence by placing
before the Court such material which, on a
preponderance of probabilities, renders the
existence of the legally enforceable debt or liability
doubtful.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir
Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, reported in (2019) 4 SCC
197, has authoritatively held that a person, who
signs a cheque and voluntarily hands it over to the

UKHC010147692026

2026:UHC:8035

payee, remains liable even if the cheque has been
filled in by some other person. The mere fact that
the particulars of the cheque were subsequently
filled in by the payee or any other person does not,
by itself, invalidate the cheque or absolve the
drawer of liability. The statutory presumption under
Section 139 of the N.I. Act continues to operate
unless the accused successfully rebuts the same by
raising a probable defence. Hon’ble Supreme Court
has further reiterated that the burden upon the
accused to rebut the statutory presumption is not
as onerous as the burden upon the prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt;
nevertheless, a mere denial or a bald assertion of
misuse of a blank cheque would not, by itself,
constitute sufficient rebuttal.
8. In the present case, the revisionist has
admitted his signature on the cheque in question.
His defence that the remaining particulars were
filled in by somebody else, therefore, does not by
itself dislodge the statutory presumption arising
under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act.
Learned Courts below have considered the said
defence and, upon appreciation of the evidence
available on record, have found it to be
unsubstantiated. Significantly, the revisionist has
failed to place any cogent and convincing material
on record to establish that the cheque had been
handed over to Kuldeep Bisht for a purpose wholly
unconnected with any liability towards respondent
no.2 or that the cheque was thereafter unlawfully
procured and misused by respondent no.2. No such
evidence has been brought on record which would
make the defence of the revisionist probable so as
to rebut the statutory presumption. The mere
difference in handwriting between the signature
and the other particulars of the cheque is also not,
in itself, sufficient to rebut the statutory
presumption, particularly when the signature on
the cheque is admitted. Learned Courts below have
concurrently considered the defence of the
revisionist and have found the same to be an
afterthought. This Court finds no compelling reason
to take a different view.
9. It is also well settled that the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court is limited and supervisory
in nature. The revisional Court does not ordinarily
re-appreciate or re-weigh the evidence merely
because another view may be possible. Where the
trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, has
recorded a finding of conviction and the same has
been independently considered and affirmed by the

UKHC010147692026

2026:UHC:8035

Appellate Court, interference in revision is
warranted only where the findings are perverse,
manifestly illegal, based on no evidence, or where
there has been a patent miscarriage of justice or
jurisdictional error. In the present case, learned
trial Court has duly appreciated the evidence on
record and recorded a finding of guilt against the
revisionist. The learned Appellate Court has
thereafter re-examined the material on record and
affirmed the said findings. The revisionist has failed
to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the
learned Courts below suffer from perversity,
manifest illegality, material irregularity or
jurisdictional error.
10. Having regard to the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the
conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and
affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is based
upon proper appreciation of the evidence and the
applicable provisions of law. No perversity, illegality,
material irregularity or jurisdictional error has been
demonstrated. There is also no material on record
to suggest that the findings of the learned Courts
below have resulted in any miscarriage of justice.
11. Consequently, no ground is made out for
interference with the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the learned Courts below in exercise of
the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
12. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the
present Criminal Revision lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.


(Alok Mahra, J.)
08.09.2026
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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20ddd
b7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987
446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.09.08 18:10:20 +05'30'