AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/ in default of which, 30 days simple imprisonment to the revisionist and further in default to pay compensation, the amount shall be recoverable under Section 421 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist/accused has submitted that the impugned order is concern with the cash transaction which is void transaction, which is barred by Section 14 of Money-Lending Act. The proceeding is not justiciable in accordance with Section 138 of N.I. Act being contrary to the U.P. Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976. The act of revisionist is not punishable under the aforesaid N.I. Act, 1881. There is no presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. Said transaction is held to be contrary to Section 269 (1) (b) of Income Tax Act. There is no provision of compensation in Section 138 of N.I. Act and only fine can be imposed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1/complainant has submitted that there are two concurrent judgments, one passed by the learned Magistrate Court and other passed by learned appellate court. The impugned judgment and orders passed by both the courts are concurrent. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. The brief contents o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... affidavit filed by the opposite party no.1/complainant did not stand. Thereafter, the revisionist/accused also made a defence that he reported to the police and bank about his lost cheque. It is to be noted that the cheque got bounced on 21.7.2018 and the next day, the accused/revisionist informed the police and on 23.7.2018 informed the bank that his cheque was lost. The reason given by the accused/revisionist for giving the late information was taking advise from his brother and father. It is very peculiar that when the complainant/opposite party no.1 tried to encash the cheque in question, then the accused/revisionist afterwards made attempt to build a story that the cheque was lost. No effort was made by the accused/revisionist before 21.7.2018. It clearly shows that it was an after thought on the part of the accused/revisionist to build a story in his defence as he has no intention of paying back the money mentioned in the cheque. The revisionist/accused has accepted his signature in the cross-examination. Considering the above fact, it is very clear that the accused had all the money and intentionally did not return the money to the complainant/opposite party no.1 and therea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present petition is concerned, it is well-settled that the High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction akin to the appellate court and the scope of interference is limited. Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying the Court as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case [Ref: Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh: (2022) 8 SCC 204; State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294]." 11. The revisionist/accused has raised issues before this Court that impugned judgments and orders dated 21.7.2025 and 29.1.2025 are ex facie arbitrary, perverse and based on no evidence on law, facts and procedure for conviction and sentence, hence liable to be set aside. The revisionist/accused raised that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the above noted criminal case for variety of reasons including the whole crimin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as reverse onus, hence presumption theory as mentioned under Section 139 of NI Act is not applicable in view of Section 14 of the U.P. Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976 and the law declared by the Larger Bench of Supreme Court of India as held in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 at 453, thus no offence under Section 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/complainant. 14. It is further stated that both the courts have erred in not taking note of revisionist's version that on 27.5.2018, the revisionist has neither asked complainant to lend him Rs. 4 lacs for cosmetics shop nor ever received such amount from opposite party no.1, which is clear from the reply dated 7.8.2018 to the notice dated 31.7.2018 and deposition of accused. Thus, the averments made in the complaint dated 24.8.2018 and deposition of opposite party no.1 are wholly concocted. There is no legal enforceable debt or other liability on the revisionist to discharge through cheque No. 595874 dated 29.6.2018. It is further stated that the learned trial court and the appellate court has not taken note of effect of Section 269SS and 269T of Income Tax Act, 1961, which permit hand loan upto Rs. 20,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., concurrent findings have been recorded by both the Courts. As regards the essential ingredients required to establish the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gimpex (P) Ltd. v. Manoj Goel: (2022) 11 SCC 705, has lucidly enumerated the same in the following terms: "26. The ingredients of the offence under Section 138 are: 26.1. The drawing of a cheque by person on an account maintained by him with the banker for the payment of any amount of money to another from that account; 26.2. The cheque being drawn for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability; 26.3. Presentation of the cheque to the bank; 26.4. The return of the cheque by the drawee bank as unpaid either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account; 26.5. A notice by the payee or the holder in due course making a demand for the payment of the amount to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank in regard to the return of the che....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act stand attracted against the revisionist. However, it is equally well settled that these presumptions are rebuttable. The accused may rebut them either by leading cogent evidence in support of his defence or by establishing such material inconsistencies or improbabilities in the complainant's version as to create a reasonable doubt regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1089, has reiterated that once the drawer admits his signature on the cheque and the fact that it was handed over to the payee, a presumption arises that it was issued in discharge of a debt or liability. The burden then shifts to the drawer to rebut this presumption by adducing credible evidence. The relevant observation is as follows: "16. A drawer who signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee, is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. The presumption arises under section 139." 21. The revisionist/acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 138 of the NI Act or rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act because such a person, assuming him/her to be the payee/holder in due course, is liable to be visited by a penalty only as prescribed. Consequently, the view that any transaction above Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) is illegal and void and therefore does not fall within the definition of "legally enforceable debt" cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the conclusion of law in P.C. Hari (supra) is set aside. 22. It is pertinent to mention that in the present case, the Respondent No.1- Accused has filed no documents and/or examined any independent witness or led any evidence with regard to the financial incapacity of the Appellant/ Complainant to advance the loans in question. For instance, this Court in Rajaram S/o Sriramulu Naidu (Since Deceased) Through LRs. vs. Maruthachalam (Since Deceased) Through LRs., (2023) 16 SCC 125 has held that presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by the accused examining the Income Tax Officer and bank officials of the complainant/drawee." 24. Thus, any breach of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act does not invali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumptions of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact as held in Hiten P. Dalal (supra). 28. Presumption of innocence is undoubtedly a human right as contended on behalf of the revisionist-accused, relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2005) 5 SCC 294 and Rajesh Ranjan Yada @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director, (2007) 1 SCC 70. However the guilt may be established by recourse to presumptions in law and presumptions in facts. 29. The Supreme Court in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2012) 13 SCC 375, reiterated that in view of Section 139, it has to be presumed that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or other liability, but the presumption could be rebutted by adducing evidence. The burden of proof was, however, on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption. The Court held "however, this presumption coupled with the object of Chapter XVII of the Act le....