HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5878 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 5.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hathras, by which Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2021 filed by the revisionist against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras dated 04.03.2021, has been dismissed. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that, there was some potato business carried out between revisionist and opposite party no. 2, wherein the complainant / opposite party no. 2 is the Director of a cold storage and the revisionist herein used to carry out the business of sell and purchase of potatoes from different farmers and get it either stored in the cold storage or sold it to the complainant / opposite party from time to time. 4. It is admitted position that, some cheques were allegedly given as a matter of security to the complainant in the year 2016. However, when the said cheques were presented before the bank on 19.09.2017 and the same was returned due to insufficient funds on 27.09.2017. He next contended that the revisionist informed the bank to stop the payment of the said cheque, but the cheque got dishonoured due to insufficient funds. He further submitted that, it is not clear as to when and on which date the instruction was given by the revisionist to the bank, to stop the payment of the cheque. In support of his contention learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satinder Kumar vs. Gurvinder Singh 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 2861. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the order passed in the complaint case by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras is in accordance with law and no technical flow whatsoever has been found in the said complaint filed by the complainant before learned A.C.J.M, Hathras. He further submitted that, as far as the offence committed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, it is merely technical in nature. So far as the quantum of money is concerned, either it relates to the liability or security etc. 6. In the present case, the revisionist has admitted that the cheque was given as a matter of security in the year 2016, which was to be released in Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Neeraj Srivastava, Pankaj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, G.A. Ram Prakash Alias Ramu .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the year 2017, wherein the balance amount of the year 2016 to the tune of Rs. 4,55,410/- has been shown due in respect of the business transaction, when the said caheque was presented before the bank, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. As soon as the revisionist came to know about dishonouring of the said cheque, he informed the bank to stop the payment. But it is not clear as to when, he informed the bank to stop the payment against the said cheque. The revisionist has neither replied to the demand notice legally sent to him, by the complainant about insufficient funds nor returned the money as was due pertaining to business transaction. As per evidence available on record, it is established that the said cheque was issued to the complainant as security amount. More so, the revisionist has admitted the signature over the cheque in question. Therefore, it appears that some amount was due to be payable to the complainant by the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 7. In the circumstances, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering all the facts and the evidence on record, as well as the impugned order, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order 5.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hathras. 8. The instant revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 9. However, the revisionist is at liberty to take legal recourse as per law. September 18, 2025 Faridul (Harvir Singh,J.) CRLR No. 5878 of 2024 2 Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad