Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 5 September, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010180052024
2025:GAU-AS:12046
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./341/2024
UDHAB CHANDRA DEKA
S/O LATE HARENDRA DEKA
R/O SARTHEBARI
WARD NO. 1,
SALAKATHIATHER CHUPA
P.S. SARTHEBARI
P.O. SARTHEBARI
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
PIN- 781307
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SRI UTPAL DEKA
S/O MADAN DEKA
R/O VILL- SARTHEARI
P.O. SARTHEBARI
P.S. SARTHEBARI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI, MS A DAS,J RABHA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS S DEV (R-2),MR. M DUTTA (R-2),L DEKA (R-2)
Page No.# 2/4
:: PRESENT ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Petitioner : Mr. T. Deuri,
Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Dutta,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 12.06.2025.
Date of Judgment : 05.09.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. T. Deuri, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an application under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging
the judgment dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barpeta
in Criminal Appeal No.43/2023 affirming the judgment dated 10.10.2023 passed by
the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta in N.I. Case No.98/2018.
3. The petitioner borrowed a cash amount of ₹4 lakhs from the respondent no.2. In
order to repay the said loan, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing cheque
No.709292 dated 27.09.2018 from his account bearing number 20218042446 of
Allahabad Bank, Panbazar Branch. The respondent no.2 presented the cheque at UCO
Bank, Sarthebari Branch for encashment. But on 19.11.2018, the Bank returned the
cheque unpaid because of insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner.
Therefore, on 03.12.2018, the respondent no.2 issued a notice demanding payment of
the money within 15 days of receiving of the said notice. The petitioner did not pay
the money though he had received the notice on 08.12.2018. Therefore, the
respondent no.2 filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. During the trial, only the complainant examined himself and exhibited some
Page No.# 3/4
documents.
5. When the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC, he had
claimed that he had borrowed a cash amount of Rs.50,000/- only from the respondent
no.2 and had issued the said cheque of Rs.4 lakhs bearing cheque No.709292 dated
27.09.2018 as a security cheque. He also claimed that he did not write amount of
money in the cheque.
6. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned trial court convicted the
petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 5 months and further sentenced to pay compensation of Rs.8 lakhs.
7. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Court. The learned
Sessions Court affirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial court and dismissed
the appeal.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid facts, the present revision petition has been filed.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
10. At this stage, this Court must remind itself that it is not an appeal. The revisional
jurisdiction of the court under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 can be exercised where
there is culpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is
completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. In Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
"18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court
is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Of course, it may
be subject to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However,
when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases
resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that
justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or
suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine
Page No.# 4/4
the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the
inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the
expression "prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice", the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety
or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The
jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the
provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion
is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the
maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse
non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things
without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very wide
power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not
permitted to be abused."
11. Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023 do not confer a right on an appellant to
file revision. But the revisional power is only discretionary with the court to see that
the justice is done in accordance with the recognized principles of criminal
jurisprudence.
12. Reverting to the case in hand, there is no illegality or impropriety committed by
the trial court as well as by the appellate court. The petitioner claimed that he actually
borrowed a sum of ₹50,000/- only from the respondent no.2 and gave the cheque of
₹4 lakhs as a security. These facts are not proved by the petitioner as he did not
examine any witnesses. I find that in the instant case there are no grounds for
interfering into the judgments passed by the trial court as well as by the appellate
court.
13. This Court is of the opinion that this revision petition is devoid of merit and
therefore, stands dismissed and disposed of as well.
The LCR shall be returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
