Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/735/2022 on 18 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8357
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLR/735/2022
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Prasanna Karnatak, learned
counsel for the revisionist.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
4. The present criminal revision has
been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 13.10.2022 passed by
learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge,
Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of
2017, whereby the appellate court
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
judgment and order passed by learned 3rd
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 6461 of
2013 convicting the revisionist under
Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "N.I.
Act") and sentencing him to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay compensation of
₹12,00,000/- to the complainant/
respondent no.2.
5. Brief facts of the case as per record
are that the revisionist and respondent
no.2 are close relatives, the revisionist
being the uncle (chacha) of respondent
no.2. It is alleged that due to financial
difficulties, the revisionist borrowed a
sum of ₹10,00,000/- from respondent
no.2 with an assurance to repay the same
within ten days. To discharge this
liability, the revisionist issued a signed
cheque in favour of the father of
respondent no.2; that, when the cheque
presented for encashment, was
2025:UHC:8357
dishonoured with the endorsement
"insufficient funds"; that, the father of
respondent no.2 then issued a statutory
demand notice under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act calling upon the revisionist to
make payment of the cheque amount, but
the notice was returned unserved.
Thereafter, the father of respondent no.2
instituted a complaint under Section 138
of the N.I. Act. Upon recording
preliminary evidence and being satisfied
that a prima facie case existed, the trial
court issued summons to the revisionist.
After trial, the revisionist was convicted
and sentenced as stated above. The
appeal preferred by the revisionist was
dismissed by the first appellate court vide
judgment dated 13.10.2022. Hence, the
present revision.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
would submit that the revisionist has
been falsely implicated due to a family
dispute regarding ancestral property; that
he never borrowed any amount from
respondent no.2 nor issued the cheque in
question towards any legally enforceable
debt or liability; that, the cheque was an
old manual cheque, allegedly misused by
the complainant in connivance with the
bank manager, and the body of the
cheque was not in the handwriting of the
revisionist.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
would further submit that the revisionist
is an aged person of more than 80 years,
suffering from partial blindness due to
glaucoma, and had no occasion to enter
into any such transaction. Learned
counsel argued that both the trial court
and appellate court erred in presuming
liability without proper proof of legally
enforceable debt.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 would submit that the
issuance of the signed cheque by the
2025:UHC:8357
revisionist is undisputed; that, once
execution of the cheque is admitted,
statutory presumption under Section 139
of the N.I. Act arises in favour of the
holder of the cheque that the same was
issued towards discharge of debt or
liability. The burden then shifts upon the
accused to rebut the presumption by
cogent evidence, which the revisionist has
failed to do.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 would further submit that the trial
court, upon appreciation of evidence has
held that the complainant had discharged
his initial burden and the presumption
under Section 139 of the N.I. Act operated
against the revisionist; that, the appellate
court, after reappraisal of evidence,
affirmed the findings of the trial court.
Both the judgments are reasoned and
based on correct application of law.
10. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
11. It is admitted that the cheque in
question bears the revisionist's signature.
Under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the law
presumes that the cheque was issued to
repay a debt or liability. This
presumption can be challenged, but the
burden is on the accused to prove, by
showing probabilities, that no such debt
or liability existed.
12. In the present case, apart from
making vague allegations that the cheque
was misused and that its particulars
were filled in by someone else, the
revisionist has not produced any evidence
to rebut the statutory presumption. No
material has been placed to show that the
cheque was not issued towards
repayment of a debt or that it was
obtained by fraud or coercion. Mere
denial of liability or taking the plea of old
age and ill health is insufficient to
2025:UHC:8357
discharge the burden. Both the trial court
and the appellate court, after considering
the evidence, have passed detailed and
reasoned orders.
13. It is well settled that while exercising
revisional jurisdiction, this Court does
not act as a second appellate court to re-
appreciate evidence, unless there is gross
illegality, manifest irregularity, or
perversity in the findings. Learned
counsel for the revisionist could not point
out any other irregularity, impropriety,
illegality and incorrectness in the
impugned judgment and order.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion,
this Court is of the view that there is no
reason to make any interference in the
impugned judgment and order. The
revision deserves to be dismissed.
15. Consequently, the criminal revision
is dismissed.
16. No order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
18.09.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:8357
