Uttarakhand High Court
Shrikant vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 July, 2026
UKHC010151462025
2026:UHC:6581
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLR/638/2025
Shrikant ........Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)
No representation for the revisionist
though called twice.
2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy
A.G. along with Mr. Vikash Uniyal,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Shashank Saun, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 through
Video Conferencing.
4. By means of the present criminal
revision, the revisionist has assailed the
judgment and order dated 14.07.2025
passed by the learned 4th Additional
Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal
Appeal No. 376 of 2023, whereby the
criminal appeal preferred by the
revisionist was dismissed and the
judgment and order dated 03.11.2023
passed by the learned 1st Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case
No. 3248 of 2020 was affirmed. By the
judgment of conviction, the learned Trial
Court convicted the revisionist for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay a fine of ₹1,85,000/-,
with a further direction that, in default
UKHC010151462025
2026:UHC:6581
of payment of fine, he shall undergo
simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
5. It is pleaded in the criminal revision
that the complaint instituted by
respondent no.2 under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act is based
on false and fabricated allegations with
the sole intention of extracting money
from the revisionist; that, no legally
enforceable debt or liability existed
against the revisionist in respect of the
cheque in question; that, both the courts
below failed to appreciate the material
contradictions between the averments
made in the complaint and the pleadings
contained in the application filed by the
complainant. It is also pleaded that the
statement of the revisionist recorded
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein
he specifically denied having issued the
cheque towards discharge of any legally
enforceable liability, has not been
properly appreciated. According to the
revisionist, the cheque was issued only
in connection with a proposed property
transaction between the parties and not
towards repayment of any loan or other
enforceable debt.
6. It is further stated that the courts
below erred in law in treating the mere
issuance of the cheque as conclusive
proof of the existence of a legally
enforceable debt; that, the revisionist
successfully discharged the initial
burden by placing on record material
indicating that the cheque had not been
issued in discharge of any legally
enforceable debt, whereafter the burden
shifted upon the complainant to prove
the existence of such liability, which,
UKHC010151462025
2026:UHC:6581
according to the revisionist, has not been
established; that, the documentary
evidence relating to the property
transaction produced by the revisionist
before the learned Trial Court has not
been duly considered either by the Trial
Court or by the Appellate Court; that,
the conviction has been recorded solely
on the basis of the oral testimony of the
complainant without proper appreciation
of the defence evidence, rendering the
findings unsustainable in law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.2/
complainant would submit that the
parties were on friendly terms, and on
account of such relationship, the
complainant had advanced a friendly
loan of ₹1,60,000/- to the revisionist. In
discharge of the said liability, the
revisionist issued the cheque in
question; that, upon presentation, the
cheque was dishonoured with the
endorsement “Payment Stopped by
Drawer”; that, thereafter, a statutory
demand notice was duly issued calling
upon the revisionist to make payment of
the cheque amount within the
prescribed period; that, despite service of
the statutory notice, the revisionist failed
to make payment, compelling the
complainant to institute the complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
8. He would further submit that after
due appreciation of the evidence on
record, the learned Trial Court rightly
convicted the revisionist and the said
judgment has rightly been affirmed by
the learned Appellate Court. It is,
UKHC010151462025
2026:UHC:6581
therefore, contended that the present
revision is devoid of merit and is liable to
be dismissed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the
complainant/respondent no.2 and
perused the material available on record.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir
Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC
197, has held that once the execution of
the cheque and the signature of the
drawer are admitted or proved, the
statutory presumptions under Sections
118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act arise in favour of the
holder of the cheque that it was issued
for consideration and in discharge of a
legally enforceable debt or liability. The
burden thereafter shifts upon the
accused to rebut the statutory
presumptions by raising a probable
defence on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. A mere
denial of liability, unsupported by cogent
evidence, is insufficient to rebut the
statutory presumption.
11. In the present case, the revisionist
has not disputed his signatures on the
cheque in question. Consequently, the
statutory presumptions under Sections
118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act stood attracted. The
defence set up by the revisionist that the
cheque had been issued in connection
with a property transaction and not
towards discharge of any legally
enforceable debt has been duly
considered by both the learned Trial
Court as well as the learned Appellate
Court. Upon appreciation of the oral as
well as documentary evidence adduced
UKHC010151462025
2026:UHC:6581
by the parties, both the courts have
concurrently recorded a finding that the
revisionist failed to rebut the statutory
presumptions and that the complainant
succeeded in proving the ingredients of
the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. It is well settled that the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court is confined to
examining the legality, correctness and
propriety of the findings recorded by the
courts below and does not permit re-
appreciation of evidence merely because
another view is possible. Unless the
findings suffer from patent perversity,
manifest illegality or jurisdictional error,
interference in revisional jurisdiction is
unwarranted.
13. Upon careful consideration of the
impugned judgments and the material
available on record, this Court does not
find any perversity, material irregularity,
misreading of evidence or jurisdictional
error warranting interference with the
concurrent findings recorded by the
courts below.
14. Accordingly, the present criminal
revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
MA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
(Alok Mahra, J.)
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
29.07.2026
MTA
OF UTTARAKHAND,
Mamta 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e
584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb
d642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd
54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a19
RANI
1648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.07.30 11:00:11 +05’30’
