IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 1009 of 2009 Hadu Palaru …. Petitioner(s) Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, Advocate -versus- Biswapati Pagal …. Opp. Party(s) Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 07.07.2026 06. 1. At the instance of the opposite party/complainant, 1CC Case No.284 of 2007 was initiated against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act for dishonored of cheque amounting to Rs.80,000/-. The court of learned JMFC, Rourkela vide its judgment and order dated 26.04.2008 convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant/opposite party. The said judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC, Rourkela in 1CC Case No.284 of 2007 was assailed by the petitioner before the appellate court. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela vide its judgment dated 04.07.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2008 affirmed the judgment of learned JMFC, Rourkela and maintained the conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 2. Both the courts below concurrently returned the finding on appreciation of the evidence that the accused petitioner had issued the cheque and on the statutory notice issued to him, he did not reply to the same. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act operates against the petitioner. However, he could not revert the said presumption. Hence, the conviction was recorded against the petitioner. The appellate court, while affirming the judgment of the learned JMFC, Rourkela, has recorded as under:- “………Though the accused took a plea that 3 of his cheques were forcibly taken away from him by a 3rd person and out of the same one has been utilized by the complainant for the case purpose he has not come to the witness box to support the said fact. Curiously he has not disclosed the name of the 3rd person who forcibly taken away three of his cheques and has not explained as to how one of the cheques out of the same came to the hand of the complainant. In that back ground the learned JMFC seems to have rightly discarded the plea of the accused. 7. In view of the undiscredited and unimpeached evidence of the complainant pw-1 and the documents marked Exts.1 to 6 coupled with the statutory presumption that arises U/s 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act which has not been rebutted by the accused it is seen the learned JMFC on proper and correct appreciation of the prosecution evidence on record rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution through its evidence has been able to prove/establish the offence U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act.” The petitioner is aggrieved by the said findings and has assailed the same in this petition. 3. Heard Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party. 4. I have carefully gone through the materials on record and analyzed the findings recorded by the courts below. I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below. Moreover, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction unless any apparent perversity is found on record, no interference is called for. Accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain this revision petition particularly in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari vrs. Kishore S. Borcar and another, reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 952. In Paragraphs-27 and 28 of the judgment, it’s observed as under:- “27. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings [See: Bir Singh (supra)]. This Court is of the view that it is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services and Others vs. Sauermilch Design and Handels GMBH, (2008) 14 SCC 457, it is a well- established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere, even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. 28. Consequently, this Court is of the view that in the absence of perversity, it was not open to the High Court in the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, to upset the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.” 5. Accordingly, the CRLREV is dismissed. Ashok ( S.S. Mishra) Judge MOHAPATRA