[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sunita Kewalkrishna Grewal vs Malika Selvaraj And Anr. on 21 January, 2026
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
Digitally
signed by
CHITRA
2026:BHC-AS:3013 CHITRA
SANJAY
SANJAY
SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.01.21
19:58:32
+0530
Chitra Sonawane. 4-revn153-2004+.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No.153 of 2004
With
Criminal Revision Application No.154 of 2004
Smt Sunita Kewalkrishna Grewal
Age: 30 yrs; Occ: Housewife,
R/at: Pasthal Naka,
Near Boisar Military School,
Room No.208,
Post- T.A.P.S., Taluka Palghar,
Dist. Thane. ...Applicant
(Ori. Complainant)
Versus
1. Smt Malika Selvaraj
Age-35 yrs; Occ: Business,
R/at: C/o. Shanti Computer Classes,
Chitralay, Boisar, Taluka-Palghar,
Dist: Thane.
2. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
----
Mr Shailesh Kantharia, for the applicant in both Revision
Applications.
Mr Shailesh Chavan, Appointed Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for respondent No.2/ State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 21 January 2026.
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 4-revn153-2004+.docx
P.C.:
None appears for respondent No.1. Mr Shailesh Chavan,
the learned Counsel present before the Court, is appointed to
espouse the cause of respondent No.1. Heard learned Counsel
for the parties.
2. By the present revision applications, the applicant seeks
enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court vide judgment and order dated 27 February 2004 passed
in SCC No.1170 of 2001 and SCC No.1169 of 2001. The
applicant herein is the original complainant, whereas the
respondent is the original accused in the aforesaid criminal
cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the complainant
and the accused were residing at Chitralaya, Boisar and had
developed close acquaintance and family relations over a period
of about four years. Taking advantage of the said relationship
and reposing confidence in the complainant, the accused
approached her seeking financial assistance. Believing the
representations made by the accused and acting in good faith,
the complainant advanced the said amount as a hand loan. The
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 4-revn153-2004+.docx
complainant required the said amount, as her husband was
needed to apply for a Visa to travel abroad to Korea. Towards
partial discharge of the said liability the accused issued two
cheques, one for Rs.20,000/- and another for Rs.15,000/-.
However, upon presentation, both the cheques were
dishonoured. Despite the issuance and service of the statutory
demand notices, the accused failed to make payment within the
stipulated period, constraining the complainant to initiate
prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. In order to substantiate her case, the complainant
examined herself on oath and relied upon documentary
evidence including the cheques in question, bank return
memos, statutory demand notices, and postal acknowledgement
receipts (RPAD slips). The defence put forth by the accused was
that the cheques were allegedly issued in connection with a
Bhishi transaction and were misused by the complainant, and
that there existed no legally enforceable debt or liability.
Significantly, the accused did not dispute the issuance of the
cheques nor her signatures thereon.
5. In view of the admitted issuance of cheques and signatures
thereon, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act squarely operate in
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 4-revn153-2004+.docx
favour of the complainant. Section 139 mandates the Court to
presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of the
cheque received the same in discharge, wholly or in part, of a
legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden, therefore,
shifted upon the accused to rebut the said presumption by
leading cogent and convincing evidence.
6. In the present case, the accused has neither stepped into
the witness box nor examined any independent witness in
support of her defence. The defence has been sought to be
established only through suggestions put to the complainant in
cross-examination. Mere bald suggestions, unsupported by
substantive evidence, cannot be held sufficient to rebut the
statutory presumption. On the contrary, the complainant's oral
testimony is consistent with the pleadings and stands
corroborated by documentary evidence such as the cheques,
bank memos, statutory notices, and proof of service thereof.
No material has been brought on record to discredit the
complainant's version or to probabilise the defence raised by
the accused.
7. As regards the sentence, the learned trial Court, after
recording conviction, has taken into consideration that the
accused is not a habitual offender, that the offence is of a
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 4-revn153-2004+.docx
technical nature, and that the accused was employed as a
teacher. On these considerations, the learned trial Court
exercised its discretion by imposing a sentence of fine only.
8. Upon careful perusal of the records and proceedings, it is
evident that the offence pertains to the year 2001 and that the
impugned judgment and order came to be passed in the year
2004. The discretion exercised by the learned trial Court in
awarding sentence cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse, or
contrary to law. The sentence imposed is within the statutory
framework and appears to have been awarded after due
consideration of mitigating circumstances. In revisional
jurisdiction, this Court would be slow to interfere with the
sentence unless the same is shown to be perverse or illegal,
which is not the case herein.
9. In view of the above discussion, no case is made out for
interference with the impugned judgment and order. The
revision applications, therefore, lack merit and accordingly, the
present criminal revision applications stand dismissed.
[R.N. Laddha, J.]
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
