[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 19 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11372
Reserved on 15.12.2025
Delivered on 19.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.927 of 2023
Manoj Kumar ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
1. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel (through V.C.) assisted by Mr.
Himanshu Singh Jolly, learned counsel for the Revisionist.
2. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Rishab Ranghar, learned counsel for the Respondent no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Revision has been filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by
the Revisionist, assailing the judgment and order dated
07.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd
Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1059 of 2017,
titled as "Shri Manoj Kumar vs. Shri Manoj Kumar" under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby the
Revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and
1
Criminal Revision No.927 of 2023 "Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11372
sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment
along with a fine of `4,35,000/-, with a default stipulation
as well as the judgment and order dated 08.12.2023 passed
by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in
Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2019, by which the appeal
preferred by the Revisionist was dismissed, and the
conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court were
affirmed.
2. The Revisionist and the Respondent No.2 are
known to each other and were admittedly acquainted prior
to the transaction in question. The proceedings arise out of a
private complaint instituted by the Respondent alleging
dishonour of cheque on account of insufficiency of funds.
The Revisional Court is thus called upon to examine the
correctness, legality and propriety of the concurrent findings
recorded by the courts below within the limited scope of
revisional jurisdiction.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records available on file.
4. Learned counsel for the Revisionist, Mr. Aditya
Singh, submitted that the cheque in question was not issued
2
Criminal Revision No.927 of 2023 "Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11372
in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. It was
argued that the cheque had been handed over only as a
security in relation to an arrangement concerning overseas
employment of relatives and was subsequently misused by
the complainant.
5. It was further contended that a Panchayat was
held between the parties on 01.12.2016, pursuant to which
a sum of `2,00,000/- was paid to the complainant.
According to learned counsel, evidence in support of the said
Panchayat and payment was brought on record, but the
same was not properly appreciated by the courts below.
6. Learned counsel also argued that the complainant
failed to establish his financial capacity to advance the
alleged amount of `4,00,000/- and that no documentary
material was produced to substantiate the alleged
transaction.
7. On these premises, learned counsel submitted that
the conviction rests on presumptions alone, that the defence
evidence has been ignored, and that the judgments under
challenge suffer from perversity warranting interference in
revision.
3
Criminal Revision No.927 of 2023 "Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11372
8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2, supported by the learned Brief Holder for the State,
submitted that both the Trial Court and the appellate court
have recorded concurrent findings based on due
appreciation of evidence and that no ground for interference
in revisional jurisdiction is made out.
9. Learned counsel submitted that the defence of the
cheque having been issued by way of security, as also the
plea of an alleged Panchayat payment, was duly considered
by the courts below and was rightly rejected as being
unsubstantiated and insufficient to rebut the statutory
presumption.
10. It was lastly argued that the present revision seeks
re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in
revisional jurisdiction, and that the impugned judgments do
not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
11. This Court has examined the matter bearing in
mind the nature of the jurisdiction invoked. A revision under
Sections 397 and 401 CrPC does not entail a rehearing of
the case on facts. Yet, it obliges the Court to independently
satisfy itself as to whether the findings recorded are legally
4
Criminal Revision No.927 of 2023 "Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11372
sustainable, based on admissible evidence, and free from
perversity or material irregularity. It is from this standpoint
that the record has been scrutinised.
12. From the material placed on record, it clearly
emerges that the cheque in question bears the admitted
signature of the Revisionist and was drawn on his bank
account. Once such foundational facts stand established,
the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted as a matter of
law. The legal consequence is that the cheque is presumed
to have been issued towards the discharge of a legally
enforceable debt or liability, unless the drawer succeeds in
rebutting the presumption by raising a probable defence.
13. The defence set up before this Court is that the
cheque was issued merely as a security and not in discharge
of any subsisting liability. This plea has been examined in
the light of the evidence led by the Revisionist. Beyond a
bare assertion, no material has been brought on record to
demonstrate the circumstances in which the cheque was
allegedly issued as security, nor to explain why such a
cheque remained with the complainant and was presented
5
Criminal Revision No.927 of 2023 "Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11372
for encashment. In the absence of supporting material, this
plea does not attain the level of a probable defence sufficient
to rebut the statutory presumption.
14. The Revisionist has also relied upon an alleged
Panchayat settlement and a plea of part payment of
`2,00,000/-. This Court has carefully considered the
evidence relied upon in support of this assertion. The
material placed does not satisfactorily establish either the
factum of a binding settlement or a payment made in
discharge of the liability arising from the cheque. Mere
reference to a Panchayat, without reliable corroboration,
cannot be accepted as sufficient to dislodge the presumption
operating in favour of the complainant.
15. The submission that part payment, even if
assumed, would render the complaint under Section 138 not
maintainable also does not commend acceptance. In the
absence of proof of lawful adjustment or reduction of the
cheque liability in accordance with the scheme of the Act,
such a plea, by itself, does not negate the offence
contemplated under Section 138.
16. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is meant to
6
Criminal Revision No.927 of 2023 "Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11372
correct jurisdictional errors, perversity, or manifest illegality.
It is not intended to substitute one plausible view with
another or to reassess the credibility of witnesses. On an
independent examination of the record, this Court does not
find that the findings under challenge suffer from any such
infirmity warranting interference.
17. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the
conviction of the Revisionist under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is founded on a correct
appreciation of the evidence and proper application of the
governing legal principles. No ground is made out for the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion and having
found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in
the judgments under challenge, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the judgment and order dated
07.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd
Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1059 of 2017 or
with the judgment and order dated 08.12.2023 passed by
the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in
Criminal Revision No.927 of 2023 "Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr."
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11372
Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2019.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is hereby
dismissed.
The conviction and sentence of the Revisionist
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
are hereby affirmed.
The bail bonds furnished by the Revisionist stand
cancelled.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
19.12.2025
Akash
AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef735
18c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c8
91823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH
Date: 2025.12.19 16:47:26 +05'30'
Criminal Revision No.927 of 2023 "Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr."
Ashish Naithani J.
