Uttarakhand High Court
Revisionist vs State Of Uttarakhand Through District on 28 July, 2026
UKHC010013932012
2026:UHC:6477
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLR/166/2012
K.p. Singh
--Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand Through District
Magistrate
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
There is no representation for the
revisionist.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, A.G.A. and
Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for
respondent nos.2 to 4.
2. By means of the present Criminal
Revision, the revisionist has assailed the
judgment and order dated 28.08.2012
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham
Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.134 of
2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the
revisionist came to be dismissed. The
revisionist has also challenged the
judgment and order dated 27.08.2010
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Criminal Case No. 700 of 2009, whereby
he was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and
was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month.
He was further directed to pay
compensation of ₹1,50,000/- to the
UKHC010013932012
2026:UHC:6477
complainant.
3. Briefly stated, the respondent-
complainant instituted a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 alleging that the revisionist had
issued a cheque for a sum of ₹1,36,800/-
in his favour towards discharge of a legally
enforceable debt. Upon presentation of the
cheque within its validity period, the same
was dishonoured by the bank on account
of “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, the
respondent served a statutory demand
notice upon the revisionist within the
period prescribed under the Act calling
upon him to make payment of the cheque
amount. Despite service of the said notice,
the revisionist failed to make payment
within the statutory period. Consequently,
the respondent instituted the complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Upon taking cognizance,
the learned trial Court summoned the
revisionist. After recording the evidence
adduced by the parties and considering
the oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record, learned Judicial
Magistrate, vide judgment and order dated
27.08.2010, 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 one month.
The learned Magistrate further directed
the revisionist to pay a sum of ₹1,50,000/-
to the complainant by way of
compensation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment of conviction and sentence, the
revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal
No.134 of 2010 before the learned
Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. The
learned appellate Court, upon re-
appreciation of the evidence on record,
dismissed the appeal vide judgment and
order dated 28.08.2012, affirming the
UKHC010013932012
2026:UHC:6477
findings recorded by the learned trial
Court. Hence, the present Criminal
Revision.
4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court,
vide order dated 31.08.2012, enlarged the
revisionist on bail during the pendency of
the revision, subject to the condition that
he shall deposit the compensation amount
of ₹1,50,000/-, as awarded by the learned
trial Court, in the Nazarat Section of the
Court concerned under double lock.
Subsequently, another Coordinate Bench
of this Court, vide order dated 31.07.2017,
modified the earlier order and directed
that the amount so deposited by the
revisionist shall be kept in a fixed deposit
scheme carrying the maximum rate of
interest available with the concerned
bank.
5. On the previous date of hearing, the
matter was referred to mediation with a
view to exploring the possibility of an
amicable settlement between the parties.
However, the mediation proceedings could
not fructify as the revisionist failed to
appear before the Mediator. The Mediator
has reported that Mr. M.S. Bhandari,
learned counsel appearing for the
revisionist, informed telephonically that
despite issuance of several
communications, the revisionist remained
unresponsive and had failed to maintain
contact with his counsel. Consequently,
the mediation proceedings could not be
conducted and the matter has been
reported back to this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents and have
carefully gone through the entire record of
the case, including the judgments and
orders passed by the learned trial Court as
UKHC010013932012
2026:UHC:6477
well as the learned appellate Court.
7. From the material available on
record, this Court finds that the
respondent-complainant has successfully
established all the essential ingredients
constituting an offence under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The
execution and issuance of the cheque by
the revisionist have been duly proved. The
cheque was presented within its validity
period and was dishonoured on account of
“insufficient funds”. The statutory demand
notice was issued within the prescribed
period and was duly served upon the
revisionist. Despite receipt of the notice,
the revisionist failed to make payment of
the cheque amount within the statutory
period. Consequently, the statutory
presumption available under Sections 118
and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
operated in favour of the complainant, and
the revisionist failed to rebut the same by
leading any cogent and reliable evidence
on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities. The learned trial Court,
upon a proper appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, recorded a well-
reasoned finding of guilt against the
revisionist. The learned appellate Court
independently re-appreciated the entire
evidence on record and concurred with the
findings recorded by the learned trial
Court.
8. It is well settled that the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court is supervisory
and limited in scope. Unless the findings
recorded by the Courts below are shown to
suffer from patent illegality, perversity,
material irregularity, jurisdictional error,
or have resulted in a manifest miscarriage
of justice, this Court would not be justified
in interfering with concurrent findings of
fact recorded by the Courts below. In the
UKHC010013932012
2026:UHC:6477
present case, both the Courts below have
meticulously appreciated the evidence
available on record and have assigned
cogent, convincing and legally sustainable
reasons while recording the conviction of
the revisionist. This Court does not find
any perversity, illegality, material
irregularity or jurisdictional error in the
appreciation of evidence or in the
conclusions arrived at by the Courts below
warranting interference in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction.
9. This Court is, therefore, of the
considered opinion that the impugned
judgments and orders are founded upon
proper appreciation of evidence and
correct application of the provisions of
law. The findings recorded therein are
neither perverse nor contrary to the
evidence on record and do not suffer from
any legal infirmity warranting interference
under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
10. Consequently, the present Criminal
Revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to
be dismissed and is, accordingly,
dismissed. The amount of ₹1,50,000/-
deposited by the revisionist pursuant to
the order of this Court, along with the
accrued interest thereon shall be released
in favour of the respondent-complainant
on making appropriate application before
the Court concerned.
11. Let the Lower Court’s Record be sent
back.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
28.07.2026
Arpan
ARPAN Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb73
JAISWAL
93398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446
351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.07.28 17:58:21 +05’30’
