Jitendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1104 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jitendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                  2025:JHHC:20388


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Revision No.151 of 2020
     Jitendra Kumar Singh, S/o Bhagirath Singh, R/o Bagbera, Shiv Nagar,
     J.P. Road, PO & PS- Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum,
     Jharkhand.                                .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                          Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Bhupendra Kumar, S/o Bhagirath Singh, R/o Bagbera, Shiv Nagar,
         J.P. Road, PO & PS- Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District- East
         Singhbhum, Jharkhand.                           .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
            ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha (4), Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Ahastri, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shekhar Sidharth, Advocate ......

11/ 24.07.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Cr. Revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act for six months and compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- has been awarded against the petitioner in Cr. Appeal No.121 of 2016 [arising out of Complaint being C/1 Case No.3146 of 2011.

2. Order has been impugned on the ground that the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 are full-brothers and the cheque was handed-over to the O.P. No.2 in good faith, but the same has been misused.

3. It has also not been disclosed that from where, the O.P. No.2 had brought the money which is alleged to have been given to the petitioner as a loan.

4. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order/judgment.

5. So far as the consideration amount for issuance of cheque is concerned, there is presumption under Section 139 of the N. I. Act that there was legally enforceable debt against which, the cheque was issued.

6. Further, so far as the misuse of the cheque is concerned, the plea is unsupported by any evidence. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan, (2019) 10 SCC 287 :

21. There is the mandate of presumption of consideration in terms of the provisions of the Act. The onus shifts to the accused on proof of issuance of cheque to rebut the presumption that the cheque was

2025:JHHC:20388

issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of Section 138 of the Act which reads as under:

"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account.--Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, ..."

7. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

Accordingly, the instant Cr. Revision stands rejected. Pending I.A., if any, also stands dismissed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Sandeep/-