Orissa High Court
R.K. Mansion Private vs Rajesh Kumar Dash on 22 July, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 442 of the
BNSS)
----------------
R.K. Mansion Private …. Petitioner
Limited, Bhubaneswar,
Khordha, represented
by its Managing Director
Jameswar Nath Sharma
-versus-
Rajesh Kumar Dash …. Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. K.C. Kar, Advocate
Mr. R.K. Prusty, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 15.07.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 22.07.2026
V. Narasingh,J. Heard learned counsel for the
Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing
the judgment dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned
Addl. District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge,
Page 1 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
(CBI) Court No.-II, Bhubaneswar, in Criminal Appeal
No. 27 of 2025, whereby the learned Appellate Court,
while affirming the judgment of conviction dated
03.03.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C (Cog-II),
Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No.134 of 2017 (T.R. Case
No.76 of 2022) qua the Petitioner under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter
referred to as “N.I. Act“), sentencing him to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only), which includes the
interest on the cheque amount and cost of litigation as
well as cost for the mental agony, to be awarded to the
Complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., which
shall be realized from the convict like criminal fine,
with a further direction that in default of payment of
the compensation amount fixed, the Petitioner should
undergo further S.I. for three months.
Page 2 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
2. For convenience of reference, the parties
shall be referred to as per their status before the
Trial Court i.e., learned J.M.F.C., Cog-II,
Bhubaneswar.
3. The case of the Complainant-Opposite Party,
in brief is that, the accused-Petitioner had given a
proposal to the Complainant to purchase one duplex
house and being satisfied with the documents, the
Complainant paid a part consideration of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) out of
total consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Lakhs) on 05.05.2015 for purchasing the duplex
house. The accused-Petitioner expressed his inability
to provide the duplex house which was supposed to be
bought by the Complainant. The accused-Petitioner
executed a written agreement with the Complainant on
23.08.2016 and thereby agreed to refund the part
consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest
@10% per annum from the date of payment i.e.
05.05.2015.
Page 3 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
Accordingly, the company of the accused-
Petitioner, in order to discharge the liability, issued two
cheques in favour of the Complainant i.e., cheque
No.031153 for Rs.2,60,000/- and cheque No.062959
for Rs.19,40,000/-, both dated 20.09.2016 drawn on
ICICI Bank, Bhubaneswar Branch. As per the
instruction of the accused-Petitioner, the Complainant
deposited the said cheques with State Bank of India,
Rail Vihar Branch, Bhubaneswar. The cheques were
returned with the remarks “Funds Insufficient” on
21.09.2016 and when again presented on 18.11.2016,
were also returned with the remarks “Funds
Insufficient.” Thereafter, Complainant-Opposite Party
instituted a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act
against the accused persons (O.P No.1 and 2) and
cognizance of the offences was taken against the
accused-Petitioner.
4. The defense plea was that the Complainant
was working with the accused-Petitioner for a long
time and taking advantage of the same, he unfairly
procured the cheque(s) and used the same.
Page 4 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
5. To substantiate his claim, the Complainant
examined himself as P.W.1 and accused No.2
(Jameswar Nath Sharma- Petitioner) examined himself
as D.W.1.
Several exhibits were marked at the behest of
the Complainant as well as at the instance of the
accused-Petitioner.
6. On going through the evidence on record
including the recitals of the demand notices at
Exhibits-4 and 5 and certified copy of the Agreement
(Exhibit.7) between accused-Petitioner and the
Complainant- Opposite Party, the learned Trial Court
found the accused-Petitioner guilty for commission of
offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and imposed
punishment for S.I. of six months and directed
recovery of compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five lakhs only).
7. Assailing the same, the accused-Petitioner
preferred Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2025 in the Court
of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-
Special Judge, (CBI Court No.-II), Bhubaneswar.
Page 5 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
7-A. The Appellate Court considered the evidence
on record and refused to interfere with the order of
conviction and sentence as well as the compensation.
8. Being aggrieved, the present revision has
been preferred.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.
Mohanty, submits that the appreciation of the evidence
by the learned Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate
Court is ex facie perverse so as to warrant interference
by this Court.
10. It is his submission that the notice at Exhibit-
4 is not in terms of the Proviso (b) to Section 138 of
the N.I. Act. As such, the very institution of the
proceeding is bad in law and the same having not been
considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court, the matter merits interference of this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
10-A. Admittedly, such a ground has not been taken
either before the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Complainant-Opposite Party submits that such stand
Page 6 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
admittedly having not been raised before the Courts
below, it is not open for the accused-Petitioner to
canvass the same before this Court in this revision for
the first time.
12. Before proceeding to consider the evidence on
record for limited purpose of evaluating the submission
of the learned counsel for the accused-Petitioner that
the appreciation of the same is ex facie perverse, this
Court feels it is prudent to answer the preliminary
objection raised by the learned counsel for the
Complainant-Opposite Party regarding infraction of
proviso (b) to Section 138 of the N.I. Act being urged
by the accused.
For convenience of reference Section 138 of
the N.I. Act is quoted as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
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
Page 7 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
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, without
prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be
punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine which
may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this
section shall apply unless–
(a) the cheque has been presented to
the bank within a period of six months from
the date on which it is drawn or within the
period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due
course of the cheque, as the case may be,
makes a demand for the payment of the
said amount of money by giving a notice
in writing, to the drawer of the cheque,
within thirty days of the receipt of
information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as
unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to
make the payment of the said amount of
money to the payee or as the case may be, to
the holder in due course of the cheque within
fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasized)
Page 8 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
13. So far as the exercise of revisional jurisdiction
by this Court is concerned, its contours are hedged by
judicial pronouncements and the underlying principle is
that the Court should be slow in re-appreciating the
evidence unless consideration thereof by the Courts
below suffer from patent perversity. Yet, the doors of
this Court in exercising revisional jurisdiction ought not
to be shut, when violation of basic ingredients of an
offence are urged even at the stage of revision.
14. The grounds to be taken before the learned
Courts below are within the domain of the counsel
appearing and the client who reposed implicit trust in
the ability of his counsel ought not to suffer merely
because such a ground was not urged before the
Courts below.
14-A. In this context, reliance can be made to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq v.
Munshilal1, wherein the Hon’ble Court has taken a
view that a Party cannot be made to suffer because of
the inaction of his Advocate.
1
Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788
Page 9 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
“xxx xxx xxx
3. The problem that agitates us is whether
it is proper that the party should suffer for the
inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour
of his agent. The answer obviously is in the
negative. …… However, we cannot be a party
to an innocent party suffering injustice merely
because his chosen advocate defaulted.
xxx xxx xxx”
15. Hence, assessing the rival contentions, this
Court is persuaded to hold that it is open for the
accused-Petitioner to assail the findings of the learned
Trial Court inter alia, on the ground of infraction of
proviso (b) to Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
16. To fortify his submission, regarding infraction
of proviso (b) to Section 138 N.I. Act, the learned
counsel for the accused-Petitioner has placed reliance
on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of
Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen
Noorul2 as well as the judgment of the Kerala High
Court in the case of A.C. Raj v. M. Rajan3.
2
Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul, 2025 SCC Online SC
2019
3
A.C. Raj v. M. Rajan, 1996 SCC OnLine Ker 284
Page 10 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
The law relating to import of notice
mentioned in proviso (b) to Section 138 N.I. Act has
been succinctly stated in paragraphs 8, 8.1 and 8.2 of
the judgment Kaveri Plastics (supra)2, which are
extracted hereunder:
"xxx xxx xxx
8. From the aforestated reiterative
pronouncements and the principles
propounded by the courts, the position of law
that emerges is that the notice demanding the
payment of the amount covered by the
dishonoured cheque is one of the main
ingredients of the offence under section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the event of
the main ingredient not being satisfied on
account of discrepancy in the amount of
cheque and one mentioned in the notice, all
proceedings under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act would fall flat as
bad in law. The notice to be issued under
proviso (b) to section 138 of the Act, must
mention the same amount for which the
cheque was issued. It is mandatory that the
demand in the statutory notice has to be the
very amount of the cheque. After mentioning
the exact cheque amount, the sender of the
service may claim in the notice amounts such
as legal charges, notice charges, interest and
such other additional amounts, provided the
cheque amount is specified to be demanded for
payment.
Page 11 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
8.1. A failure in above regard, namely when
the cheque amount is not mentioned in the
proviso (b) notice or the amount different than
the actual cheque amount is mentioned, in the
notice, such notice would stand invalid in eye
of law. The notice in terms of proviso (b) being
a provision in penal statute and a condition for
the offence, it has to be precise while
mentioning of the amount of the cheque which
is dishonoured. Even if the cheque details are
mentioned in the notice but corresponding
amount of cheque is not correctly mentioned,
it would not bring in law the validity for such
notice. Here the principle of reading of notice
as a whole is inapplicable and irrelevant. Any
elasticity cannot be adopted in the
interpretation. It has to be given technical
interpretation.
8.2. The condition of notice under proviso (b)
is required to be complied with meticulously.
Even typographical error can be no defence.
The error even if typographical, would be fatal
to the legality of notice, given the need for
strict mandatory compliance. And in the facts
of the present case, the explanation that
mentioning of wrong amount in the cheque
was in the nature of typographical or
inadvertent error could hardly be accepted, for
the so-called mistake occurred and recurred in
both the notices dated June 8, 2012 and
September 14, 2012.
xxx xxx xxx" 17. The judgment in the case of A.C. Raj
(supra)3 is also to the same effect and the accused-
Page 12 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
Petitioner relies on paragraph-11 thereof, which is
extracted hereunder:
“xxx xxx xxx
11. There is another reason also which justifies
the acquittal. Ext. P3 is the office copy of the
notice contemplated by proviso (b) to section
138. There, payment was demanded not only
of the amount covered by the cheque, but also
interest thereon without specifying the rate of
interest. The learned counsel for the
respondent would urge that such a notice is an
insufficient notice or a notice which cannot be
treated as legal under proviso (b) to section
138. In support of this contention, reliance was
placed on the decision reported in 1996 (2)
KLT 886 (Gopa Devi Ozha v. Sujit Paul). The
decision was rendered by the High Court of
Calcutta. There, the amount covered by the
cheque was Rs. 5,79,000/- and the amount
claimed under the notice was Rs. 6,50,000/-.
In considering the legality and sufficiency of
that notice, that court held that the words “the
said amount” in proviso (b) to section 138 and
identical words in proviso (c) to that section
would necessarily indicate that the notice must
be one demanding the amount covered by the
cheque and nothing more or nothing less.
According to that court, a notice claiming a
higher amount or a lesser amount makes the
notice insufficient and vague, and such a
notice will be illegal. I do not see any reason to
disagree with the learned Judge who rendered
the above said decision.
xxx xxx xxx”
Page 13 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
18. Learned counsel for the Complainant submits
that the above said judgments are of no assistance, in
so far as the present lis is concerned.
19. To appreciate the grounds urged by the
learned counsel for the accused-Petitioner, it is apt to
refer to Exhibit-4, the notice which was issued on
behalf of the Complainant dated 30.11.2016, the same
is culled out hereunder for ready reference
“xxx xxx xxx
Ref:15 Date:30/11/2016
For and on behalf of:
Rajesh Kumar Dash
xxx xxx
To
1. R.K.Mansion Private Ltd.,
xxx xxx
2. Jameswar Nath Sharma
xxx xxx
Managing Director of R.K. Mansion Private Ltd.
NOTICE
Dear Sir,
Under the instruction of my above named
client I serve this notice as here under.
1. That, my client’ had entered into an oral
agreement with you to purchase one duplex
house situated at Mouza-Kurundi, Khata No.1.
Plot No.964 in the name and style of R. K. Villa
Duplex.
Page 14 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
2. That on 05.05.2015 my client had paid a part
consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees
twenty lakhs) only out of total consideration of
Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs) only.
3. That you expressed your inability to provide
the duplex house and promised to refund the
part consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees twenty lakhs) only with interest @ 10%
per annum from the date of payment i.e.
05.05.2015 for one year as total amount of
Rs.22,00,000/-(Rupees twenty two lakhs) only
and executed an agreement to that effect on
23.08.2016.
4. That, in order to discharge your liability you
had issued two numbers of cheques bearing
No.031153 amounting to Rs.2,60,000/-(Rupees
two lakhs sixty thousand) only dtd.20.09.2016
and another cheque bearing No. 062959
amounting to Rs.19,40,000/-(Rupees nineteen
lakhs forty thousand )only both are drawn on
ICICI Bank, Bhubaneswar branch Unit-III,
Opposite Sriya Talkies, Off- Janpath,
Bhubaneswar.
5. That, as per your instruction of my client
deposited the said two nos cheques with his
banker, State Bank of India, Rail Vihar Branch,
Bhubaneswar on 20.09.2016 which was
returned with remarks “Funds Insufficient” on
dd.21.09.2016. My client again deposited the
said two nos cheques with his banker as per
your instruction on 18.11.2016 which was
returned with remarks “Funds Insufficient” in
return Memo on dtd.19.11.2016.
6. That, my client demand you to make
payment of Rs.22,00,000/-(Rupees twenty two
lakhs) only within a period of 15 days of receipt
of this demand notice, failing which my client
shall be constrained to initiate both criminal and
Page 15 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
civil action against you for realization of the said
amount with interest.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasised)
20. It is stated by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner referring to the said notice in the context of
the cheque in question i.e.,No.062959 amounting to
Rs.19,40,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank Bhubaneswar,
Branch-3, Opposite Sriya Talkies, of Janpath,
Bhubaneswar, that in notice the amount demanded is
admittedly Rs.22,00,000/- and placing reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kaveri
Plastics (supra)2 as well as the judgment of the
Kerala High Court in the case of A.C. Raj (supra)3, it
is vehemently urged that the notice does not reflect
the exact amount of the cheque, which was
dishonoured as such there is patent infraction of
proviso (b) to Section 138 of N.I. Act.
21. On a bare perusal of the notice, it is seen that
the said notice related to the two cheques, one which
is the subject matter of the present revision and the
Page 16 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
other being for an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-, in respect
of which CRLREV No.38 of 2026 has been preferred.
22. The cheque amount mentioned in the notice
which has been referred by the Apex Court in the case
of Kaveri Plastics (supra)2 was to the tune of Rs.1
crore and the complaint asked for payment of Rs.2
crores and in the said context the Apex Court laid
down the law as extracted hereinabove in
Paragraphs.8 to 8.2 and in the judgment of the Kerala
High Court in A.C. Raj (supra)3 relied upon by the
learned counsel, it is seen that the notice was issued
“not only of the amount covered by the cheque, but
also interest thereon without specifying the rate of
interest” and in that context, the Court considered
proviso (b) to Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the
import of the words “the said amount”.
22-A. The High Court of Kerala in the
aforementioned judgement held that the said notice
was “insufficient and vague” and was not in
consonance with the notice as envisaged under Proviso
Page 17 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
(b) to Section 138 of the N.I. Act and dismissed the
complaint.
23. On a bare perusal of the notice issued in the
case at hand at Exhibit-4, the same does not suffer
from any infirmity and there is no embargo in law for
issuing one notice for two cheques which have been
dishonoured and on a bare perusal of the notice in
question (Exhibit-4), it is seen that the amount
claimed is the amount for which the cheque(s) have
been issued. As such, the aforesaid judgements relied
upon by the Petitioner are clearly distinguishable on
facts and are of no assistance to the Petitioner.
23-A. Reference in this regard is made to the
judgment of Fayaz Ahmad Rather v. Tariq Ahmad
Wani4, wherein the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
and Ladakh held thus;
“xxx xxx xxx
14. The issue as to whether a single complaint
would be maintainable in respect of more than
three cheques has been dealt with by various
High Courts of this Country and it has been the
consistent view of the Courts that a single
complaint in respect of dishonour of more than
4
Fayaz Ahmad Rather v. Tariq Ahmad Wani, 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 176
Page 18 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
three cheques is maintainable if a consolidated
notice of demand is served upon the accused….
xxx xxx xxx”
24. On going through the judgements passed by
the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, it is seen
that the Trial Court based its judgment on the
following counts;
xxx xxx xxx
4. Points for Determination:
From the facts and circumstances of the case,
the following points for determination comes to
light:
I. Whether the cheques bearing No. 062959 of
ICICI Bank, Bhubaneswar Branch, Unit No.-III,
Opp. Sriya Talkies, Off Janpath, Bhubaneswar-
751001, amounting to Rs. 19,40,000/-, is issued
by the accused persons to the complainant and
the said cheque was issued by the accused
persons (as the same persons in one) towards
discharge in part of any legally enforceable debt
or other liability from the complainant?
II. Whether the complainant presented the said
cheque in his bank within three months from the
date on which it was drawn or within the period
of its validity?
III. Whether the said cheque was dishonoured
by the bank on any ground which attracts
implementation of Section 138 of the Act?
IV. Whether the complainant has made demand
for payment of the dishonoured cheque amount
from the accused persons by sending a demand
notice in writing to the accused persons within
thirty days of the receipt of information from thePage 19 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
bank regarding the return of the cheque as
unpaid/dishonoured?
V. Whether the accused persons have failed to
make the payment of the said cheque demanded
amount of money to the complainant within
fifteen days of the receipt of the said pleader’s
notice from the complainant?
VI. Whether the complaint petition is
maintainable?
xxx xxx xxx
25. The Appellate Court on scrutiny of such
judgment has noted that the Accused No.2 examined
as D.W.1 in the original complaint case has admitted
Exhibit-1, the cheque in question and also the
signature. It also took cognizance of the fact that no
steps have been taken to substantiate the defence plea
that the cheque was forged and misused.
26. It also referred to Exhibit-7, i.e., the
agreement between the parties, which has been
admitted in the case at hand by Accused No. 2 in his
individual capacity as well, without any objection.
It was also noted that the accused was
impleaded in his individual capacity as well as the
company has been cited as co-accused.
Page 20 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
26-A. The Appellate Court has affirmed the finding
in this regard by the Trial Court that there is no
infraction regarding impletion of proper parties.
27. On scrutiny of the materials and evidence on
record, this Court finds that the Complainant had filed
the original complaint against the company so also the
Managing Director, Jameswar Nath Sharma in his
individual capacity.
It is apt to note that this revision has been
preferred by the Petitioner as managing director
though the appeal was filed by the Petitioner in his
capacity as managing Director as well as in his
individual capacity, as such, the individual liability fixed
so far as of the accused Jameswar Nath Sharma is
concerned has not been assailed and attained finality.
28. On a conspectus of the materials on record
this Court finds that, there is no infirmity in the
appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court as affirmed
by the Appellate Court, in the light of the provisions as
contained Section 138 of the N.I. Act so as to warrant
Page 21 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction.
30. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands rejected.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 22nd July, 2026/ Soumya
22.07.2026/Uploaded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIgh Court of Orissa
Date: 22-Jul-2026 20:10:19
Page 22 of 22
CRLREV No.1116 of 2025
