Complainant’s Wife Acknowledged ₹1.19 Lakh Deposits But Did Not Say Debt Was Cleared: Orissa HC Upholds Cheque-Bounce Conviction

The petitioner challenged the judgment affirming his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment, compensation of ₹1,25,000, and one month’s simple imprisonment in default of payment

He argued that payments had substantially discharged the debt, relying on a bank officer’s evidence that four cash deposits totalled ₹1,19,650 and on the complainant’s wife’s testimony

The High Court examined the wife’s evidence, which acknowledged the deposits but denied that they discharged the accused’s liability

The proceedings concerned the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court also referred to Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, as an authority on the exercise of jurisdiction in Section 138 matters; the judgment does not set out a specific legal proposition from that decision.

The bank officer’s evidence established deposits totalling ₹1,19,650, but that fact alone did not establish that the debt had been discharged when the cheque was issued.

The complainant’s wife expressly denied that the deposits were made towards discharging the accused’s liability and denied that no liability remained. On that record, the Court found no basis to regard the lower courts’ assessment as perverse and, applying the limits of revisional jurisdiction and referring to Sanjabij Tari, declined to interfere.

The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as affirmed on appeal, therefore remained undisturbed.