Allahabad High Court
Poonam Chandila vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188135
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1754 of 2025
Poonam Chandila
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Vijay Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Reserved on 10.10.2025
Delivered on 28.10.2025.
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State-respondent. No one has appeared for opposite party no.2 even in revised call.
2. The aforesaid criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.3.2025, passed by the Sessions Judge, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2024 (Nauraj Vs. Poonam Chandila and another), whereby the appeal preferred by the opposite party no. 2 has been allowed and judgment and order dated 30.7.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court 138, NI Act, Gautam Budh Nagar, convicting and sentencing the accused-opposite party no.2 in Complaint case No. 133 of 2024 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Beta-II, District Gautam Budh Nagar has been set aside.
3. The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant-revisionist had entered into a sale deed of her plot to Smt. Omkari. The plot is situated at Khasra No. 617 in village Tusiyana, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar admeassuring 150 sq. yard. The agreed sale consideration was Rs. 12 lacs, which was paid by the opp. party no. 2 and his wife Smt. Omkari and the sale deed was executed and registered on 8.7.2020 before the Sub Registrar, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar. A cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/ given to the revisionist by the opp. Party no.2 has been dishonoured due to stop payment.
4. Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which are relevant for consideration of case read as under:-
"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 stamps-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.
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 section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability."
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the accused-opposite party no. 2 took a ground that he first issued cheque No. 095670 to the complainant-revisionist and after same was allegedly misplaced, another cheque No. 095660 was issued on the same date and while considering the said ground taken by the accused-opposite party no.2, the learned appellate court has failed to consider the fact that it is beyond imagination as cheque No. 095670 was issued earlier and cheque No. 095660 was issued subsequently.
6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant-revisionist that perusal of material available on record, it would show that no complaint was ever filed by the accused-opposite party no.2 either before the police or before the concerned Bank regarding misplacement of cheque in question bearing cheque No. 095670 nor any such document has been filed by the opposite party no.2 either before the trial court or before learned appellate court. Therefore, the learned appellate court has wrongly relied upon the averments made by the accused-opposite party no.2 and acquitted him from the charges merely on the basis of presumption.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant-revisionist further submitted that there does not appear any document on record to show that as to when the application for stop payment of cheque in question being cheque no. 095670 was moved by the accused-opposite party no. 2 before the concerned Bank, which further falsifies the entire case of the accused-opposite party no.2 that the same was misplaced even before execution of sale deed and, therefore, cheque no. 095660 was issued in lieu thereof.
8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant-revisionist that perusal of cheque in question being cheque no. 095670 would show that there is no over-writing on the date in the cheque in question which clearly rules out the case of the opposite party no.2. that cheque no. 095670 was of 21.3.2020, while in fact said cheque was issued undated and thereafter, the accused-opposite party no.2 himself kept postponing the same from presentation of its encashsment and ultimately for the first time, he himself put a date of 14.1.2021 on the same and asked the complainant-revisionist to produce the same for encashment, but got the payment of the same stopped in order to deceit the complainant-revisionist.
9. On perusal of the appellate court's order dated 7.3.2025, the consideration of legal debt or liability has arose from the sale deed which is a basic document between the revisionist and Smt. Omkari wife of Nauraj-opposite party no.2). This is the contention of the complainant-revisionist that said cheque was issued in lieu of consideration which was mentioned in the registered sale deed, registered at Book No.1 Volume 15047 on pages 275/304 at serial No. 8136 before the Sub-Registrar, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar. The registered sale deed was executed by the complainant-Smt. Poonam Chandila (the revisionist) in favour of Smt. Omkari wife of Nauraj (Opposite party no.2-accused). The amount of sale consideration as mentioned in the said sale deed was Rs. 12 lacs, hence legal debt or liability, if any, on the purchaser-Smt. Omkari wife of opposite party no.2 is limited upto Rs. 12 lacs only.
10. In the registered sale deed, the entire sale consideration has been passed and it is specifically mentioned that now no balance amount is left to be paid. The possession of the plot in question was also delivered by the complainant-revisionist to the purchaser Smt. Omkari wife of Nauraj (Opp. Party No.2).
11. The complainant-revisionist has admitted in her cross-examination and specifically stated that Rs. 12 lacs is the consideration amount and also admitted that cheque no. 095670 which has been dishonoured is mentioned in the sale deed and date of cheque mentioned is 21.3.2020. It is also conceded that on 21.3.2020, another cheque no. 95660 has been issued for Rs. 3 lacs and same is derived from cross-examination of CW-2, Sunil Kumar, but he has exceeded in his cross-examination that consideration amount agreed between the parties was Rs. 19 lacs. CW-2, Sunil Kumar is none other than the husband of the complainant-Smt. Poonam Chandila (revisionist), whereas the basic document between the parties is a registered sale deed as mentioned herein above, where sale consideration is of Rs. 12 lacs only and the entire sale consideration had been settled. The amount of Rs. 19 lacs as stated by CW-2-Sunil Kumar, husband of the complainant-revisionist is neither mentioned in the complaint nor stated by the complainant-revisionist, but CW-2, Sunil Kumar has mentioned in his examination-in-chief, which is a fact beyond pleadings.
12. The opposite party no.2 has filed a copy of the bank statement in defence before the appellate court to show that on 21.3.2020, cheque no. 095660 amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/ has been transferred in favour of the complainant-revisionist. DW-1, Omkari wife of opposite party no.2 stated in her statement that she has passed over the entire sale consideration of Rs. 12 lacs in favour of the complainant-revisionist and the cheque which is shown to be dishonoured was stated to be missing by the complainant-revisionist, in lieu of which another cheque no. 95660 dated 21.3.2020 has been issued and credited in favour of revisionist. The cheque in question has been misused by the revisionist by putting a date, 14.1.2021, though in the sale deed, the date of cheque is mentioned as 21.3.2021.
13. DW-2, Nauraj/opposite party no. 2 has also stated the issuance of cheque 095670 which was dishonoured and mentioned in the sale deed and issuance of cheque no. 95660, but cheque no. 95660 has been issued for different purpose. This purpose is nowhere disclosed in the complaint by the revisionist, though the opposite party no.2 has mentioned that cheque has been issued for the same amount and of the same date.
14. It is held by the Apex Court on the point of discharge of reverse burden in the case of K.N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan and another (2001) 8 SCC 458 that burden of proving that cheque had not been issued for any debr or liability is on the accused. Denial/averments in reply by the accused are not sufficient to shift burden of proof on the complainant. The accused has to prove in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
15. The Supreme Court also held in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde ( 2008) 4 SCC 54 that "a statutory presumption has an evidentiary value. The question as to whether the presumption whether stood rebutted or not, must, therefore, be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. For the said purpose, stepping into the witness box by the appellant is not imperative. In a case of this nature, where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be take into consideration."
16. The appellate court has correctly held that the trial court has committed error in appreciation of facts which itself devolved out from the sale deed relied on by the revisionist, wherein the amount of consideration of Rs. 12 lacs has been duly paid by the opposite party no.2 and his wife Smt. Omkari as per the appended schedule, wherein cheque no. 095670 amounting to Rs. 3 lacs is dated 21.3.2020 and on the same date, another cheque no. 95660 of Rs. 3 lacs has been given in favour of the revisionist which was honoured.
17. These two facts regarding incorrect mentioning of date in the sale deed pertaining to dishonoured cheque and the payment of Rs. 3 lacs by way of different cheque goes to show that the accused-opposite party no.2 has rebutted the presumption provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The revisionist has not given any evidence to show that why cheque no. 95660 of the same amount has been issued by the accused-opposite party no.2 in favour of the revisionist, though the total amount of consideration of Rs. 12 lacs was paid by the accused-opposite party no. 2 to the revisionist, in respect of which, the sale deed has been executed. The cheque number mentioned in the sale deed is 095670 dated 21.3.2020 amounting to Rs. 3 lacs, whereas the revisionist has filed complaint mentioning date of cheque as 14.1.2021, both the are contradictory to each other.
18. In view thereof, the revisionist has failed to prove that the cheque in question has been issued in discharge of any debt or liability. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 7.3.2025, passed by the appellate court/Sessions Judge, Gautambuddh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2024 (Nauraj Vs. Poonam Chandila and another), hence, this criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
19. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
October 28, 2025
sfa/
