An accused who fails to use granted cross-examination opportunities cannot seek remand on that ground.

The accused obtained ₹2,50,000 from the complainant finance company to purchase a vehicle and later issued a cheque for ₹4,50,000 towards repayment.

The cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds; after the accused failed to pay following statutory notice, the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

The Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed a fine of ₹4,60,000, including ₹4,50,000 as compensation; the First Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the accused argued, among other things, that he had not received a sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the complainant’s witness.

Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence suffered from illegality, perversity, or another ground warranting interference in revision.

Whether the matter should be remanded because the accused allegedly lacked a sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the complainant’s witness and rebut the statutory presumptions.

Section 138 of the NI Act criminalises the dishonour of a cheque where the statutory requirements are met.

Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act provide presumptions in favour of the holder and that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, subject to rebuttal.

The Court stated that revisional jurisdiction is limited and may be exercised where there is patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice.

The Court found from the record that the accused had opportunities to cross-examine PW-1 but did not avail himself of them; he had also remained absent on multiple dates, including before the First Appellate Court.

Given those circumstances, and the duration of the proceedings, the Court held that a further opportunity or remand was not justified.

The assertion that the accused might have rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 did not establish a denial of opportunity or a ground for revision.

The Court found no procedural illegality or other basis to disturb the concurrent findings.

The Court modified the sentence: the total fine was reduced to ₹4,50,000, the entire amount—including any amount already deposited—was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation, and the accused was given three months to deposit it.

In default, he must undergo simple imprisonment for one year.