S. No.122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRR No.2096 of 2025 Date of Decision:28.08.2025 Tinku .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Kewal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 04.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2019 – Tinku Vs. Ashok Kumar, vide which appeal instituted against the judgment dated 05.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 06.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind in Criminal Complaint No.270-2 of 2014 vide which revisionist was held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year besides payment of fine of Rs.3,25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months’, was dismissed and the judgment passed by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was upheld and affirmed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the material on file.

3. As per version of complainant, he had family relations with the accused who took a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from him in November, 2013 and promised to repay the same as and when demanded. When complainant demanded back the loan amount, he issued a cheque dated 25.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs drawn at UCO Bank, Jind but on presentation, the cheque was dishonored due to “Account Closed” vide bank Memo dated 07.10.2014. Thereafter, complainant served a legal notice dated 16.10.2014 upon the accused through his counsel but no payment was made. After the accused was summoned, the complainant led his evidence and besides examining himself as CW1, he tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C1, cheque Ex.C2, bank return memo Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4 and legal notice Ex.C5. Thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and accused in his defence tendered documents i.e. attested copy of complaint under Section 420/406 IPC filed by him against complainant Ex.D1, attested copy of his statement recorded in that complaint Ex.D2, attested copy of statement of CW2 Surender Redhu, Clerk as Ex.D3, attested copy of postal receipt Ex.D4, attested copy of statement of account Ex.D5, copies of bank certificate regarding close bank account as Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 and accused closed his evidence in defence.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, accused was held guilty and convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. The appeal filed by the revisionist was also dismissed and feeling aggrieved, present revision petition has been instituted.

5. It is well settled that the powers of High Court to re-appreciate evidence in a criminal revision are very limited and the Court generally cannot re-

examine the evidence as the Appellate Court does. Revisional power can be exercised only to ensure the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the trial Magistrate and to prevent gross miscarriage of justice, such as a patent error of law or procedure or a perverse finding of fact. The High Court can re-appreciate the evidence only to correct blatant procedural flaws or manifest errors of law which may have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, not simply because a different view of the evidence is possible. The High Court has jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C as a supervisory power to examine the record of any inferior criminal Court to satisfy itself about the legality, correctness, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. It is also well settled that interference in a revision petition is warranted only when the decision is grossly erroneous, in non-compliance with the provisions of law, based on a finding of fact which is not supported by