Judgement Reserved on: 24.11.2025 Judgement Delivered on: 16.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.256 of 2025 Sanjay Saklani ......Revisionist Vs.

Suresh Chandra Badhwa …..Respondent Presence Mr. B. S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the Respondent.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision arises out of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent filed Criminal Complaint Case No. 3394 of 2016 alleging dishonour of Cheque No. 024346 dated 15.05.2016 for an amount of ₹24,00,000 drawn on ICICI Bank, said to have been issued by the Revisionist towards repayment of money advanced in connection with an agreement to sell certain land.

2. The cheque was first presented on 16.05.2016 and returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. A statutory notice dated 01.06.2016 was issued to the Revisionist. The cheque was again presented on 08.08.2016 and dishonoured on 09.08.2016. A second statutory notice dated 10.08.2016 was issued, followed by the filing of the complaint on

30.08.2016.

3. During the pendency of the complaint, the Revisionist approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 233 of 2017 raising the issue of limitation. By judgment dated 22.02.2017, this Court directed the trial court to consider the complaint in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. The learned trial court, by judgment dated 05.04.2021, convicted the Revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to two years’ simple imprisonment along with fine of ₹24,25,000.

5. Both parties preferred appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2021 was filed by the Revisionist and Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2021 by the complainant seeking enhancement. By common judgment dated 08.12.2023, the appellate court modified the sentence to one year simple imprisonment and enhanced the compensation to ₹35,00,000.

6. The Revisionist was taken into custody in connection with this case on 21.03.2025 and continues in judicial custody.

7. The present Criminal Revision challenges the judgment dated 08.12.2023, primarily on the grounds of limitation, coercion in obtaining the cheque, and incorrect appreciation of evidence, with a prayer for acquittal or suitable modification.

8. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the complaint itself was barred by limitation, inasmuch as the first statutory notice was issued on 01.06.2016 following the dishonour on 16.05.2016. It is contended that the cause of action arose on the first dishonour, and the second presentation of the cheque could not revive limitation. It is urged that despite the High Court’s directions dated 22.02.2017, the courts below did not adequately consider this aspect.

9. It is further contended that the cheque in question was not voluntarily issued but was forcibly taken from the Revisionist at the police station under pressure. Reference is made to the Revisionist’s statement under Section 313 CrPC as well as his statement under Section 251 CrPC, forming Annexure-7, to argue that the defence of coercion was consistently maintained throughout the trial.

10. Learned counsel argues that in cross-examination, the complainant allegedly admitted circumstances supporting the defence version. It is thus urged that the presumption under Sections 118(a) and

139 of the Act stands rebutted and the conviction is not sustainable.

11. It is lastly contended that the sentence imposed is harsh and disproportionate, particularly in view of the fact that the Revisionist has remained in custody since 21.03.2025 and has already deposited 20 percent of the cheque amount before the appellate court on 22.09.2021. Prayer is made to set aside the conviction; in the alternative, to modify the sentence to the period already undergone.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment of the appellate court. It is submitted that the cheque admittedly be