IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No.312 of 2020

12^th September, 2025

Vinod Kumar ……..Revisionist

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ……… Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

revisionist.

Mr. B. N. Maulekhi, learned DAG for the State.

Mr. Gulsan Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ganesh

Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

This Criminal Revision has been filed

challenging the judgment & order dated 06.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2020, ‘Vinod Kumar Vs. Narendra Singh Danu and another’, whereby the appeal of the appellant/accused has been dismissed. Revisionist has also challenged the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar in Criminal

Case Nos.572 of 2018 and 785 of 2018 convicting the revisionist under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881.

2. Earlier a complaint was lodged against the applicant by the respondent no.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Thereafter, matter was investigated and learned Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar in Criminal Case Nos.572 of 2018 and 785 of 2018 vide order dated 31.01.2020 convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of N.I. Act and directed him to undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of ₹2,60,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment (in both the Criminal Case Nos.572 of 2018 and 785 of 2018). Against the said order, revisionist filed Criminal Appeal. The said Criminal Appeal has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar vide order dated 06.11.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the complainant failed to prove any legally enforceable debt or liability of the revisionist; that, the revisionist has proved before the court below that the alleged cheque was given as security cheque and not against any legal recoverable debt towards the revisionist;

that, the learned trial court and the appellate court erred in not appreciating the fact of the instant case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would submit that there is concurrent finding of the courts’ below, therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted.

5. After hearing the leaned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it is established by documentary evidence that the revisionist has paid some amount by the cheques, which were dishonoured, thus, the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act are fully made out against the revisionist.

6. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment & order dated 06.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2020, therefore, in limine the Criminal Revision is dismissed .

(Alok Mahra, J.)

12.09.2025 BS B SI A N L G W H ANT DDO2ds7D e . 5 f iN a F54r g t i . : b U4 a i e D tc al . : a T2 N = C2 7 l 0 0 I u 0 c yNA=em 2 R s, f A 8 5 i b oA b g 6 7. = 0 e K n 4 A9 d H r H e 0 1= . 1 1 Id c A 3 G 0 95 5 C N b 4 H 18 11E y Dc2 5 C 4 1 8, 0 B :A O 4 b 2 , A 16 dp 7 UL D8: bo WR 20Fs8 T 5C t A 4 b a O +36 N 1lC F0 1 F 6 T A5 4 oe US ' F9 d8 3 TI 90 ce N 0 A a , = ' GA c 7 42 n HR 9 D6 = A 3 35B 7 K 0F d A H 4 e L 18 A a W ,3 N fs4 7 A D t6=2 N , E aU o TB 1T u 5 7 S = c I A N H 3 0RDG 2 IG Af HE e H K5 2H 1 e C 8Aa O 5 cN U F bD4 R f2,1 T 8 8 c