2026:JHHC:16765 Cr. Revision No.1089 of 2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1089 of 2017 --------- Sushant Oraon, S/o-Dassa Oraon, resident of village-Chanho, P.O.-Mahuari, P.S.-Kairo, Dist.-Lohardaga ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Lohardaga Branch, at Barwatoli Chowk, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Lophardaga …. Opp. Parties ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, S.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ----------- CAV On 15th May, 2026 Pronounced on 10 /06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 assisted by learned Spl.P.P. 2. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal No.16 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal with modification in sentence and upheld the compensation amount which was filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.01.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lohardaga in Complaint Case No.57 of 2015 appertaining to its Trial No.49 of 2016, whereby learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 2 years along with a fine/compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. two lakhs). 2026:JHHC:16765 Cr. Revision No.1089 of 2017 2 Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant is a Branch Manager of UCO Bank. It is alleged that the complainant provided a loan of Rs.5.60 lakh (Rs. Five lakhs and sixty thousand) to the accused on 27.08.2012 for the purpose of purchasing a commercial vehicle. It is further alleged that in course of transaction, the loan amount of accused became overdue for Rs.1,23,540/- (Rs. One lakh twenty three thousand five hundred forty). It is further alleged that on request of the complainant (Bank Manager), the accused issued a cheque No.465513 dated 21.01.02015 for amount of Rs.1,23,540/- (Rs. One lakh twenty three thousand five hundred forty) drawn in the name of complainant bank for discharging the aforesaid arrears of loan amount. The cheque was deposited for encashment pertaining to the account maintained by the petitioner, but the same was returned unpaid due to ‘insufficient fund’ in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 23.01.2015 sent through registered letter to the accused/petitioner but of no avail. Accordingly, the complaint case was instituted. 4. The accused was summoned vide order dated 29.05.2015 by the learned trial court, and he appeared in compliance of summons. The substance of the accusation for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act was 2026:JHHC:16765 Cr. Revision No.1089 of 2017 3 explained to the accused to which he pleaded no guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, the complainant was examined as C.W.1 and also adduced following documentary evidence: Ext.1-Cheque no.465513 dated 21.01.2015 issued by the accused drawn in the name of complainant bank. Ext.2- Banker’s return memo dated 21.01.2015 Ext.3-legal notice dated 23.01.2015 Ext.4-postal receipt of registered letter of notice dated 23.01.2015. The copy of tracking report of speed-posts marked “x”. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. Submission on behalf of petitioner:- 7. Assailing the impugned judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no evidence of service of notice upon the petitioner, therefore, no cause of action arose to institute this complaint case against the petitioner. It is further argued that the cheque was issued by the petitioner as a security for discharging the loan, which has been misused by the bank. It is argued that the registration number of the vehicle allegedly purchased by the petitioner has also not been 2026:JHHC:16765 Cr. Revision No.1089 of 2017 4 mentioned and no vehicular documents have been proved. No hypothecation documents of the vehicle have been adduced in the evidence. It is further argued that the very documents of loan transactions has not been adduced in evidence showing the actual liabilities or any loan account in between the complainant and the petitioner. Therefore, the whole prosecution case is absurd and has no leg to stand. Learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has failed to consider the very basic ingredients for constitution of offence under section 138 of NI Act. Without proof of any existing liability and the loan transaction documents, no offence is constituted at all. Therefore, the impugned judgments are totally illegal and beyond the provision of section 138 and ancillary provisions of N.I. Act, which is liable to be set aside, allowing this revision. Submission on behalf of State:- 8. On the other hand, learned O.P. No.2 assisted with learned Spl.P.P. controverting the aforesaid arguments have submitted that the petitioner, in the course of trial, has cross-examined the complainant at length but nothing has been elucidated that there was no loan transaction and no vehicle was ever purchased by the petitioner by getting loan from the complaint bank and that he has given the cheque as a matter of security and to what amount was taken by him. The question arises if he has taken no loan at all then why he has deposited 2026:JHHC:16765 Cr. Revision No.1089 of 2017 5 the cheque as security. It is further submitted that the loan transaction is of the year 2012 but the cheque was issued in the year 2015 and the notice was sent through speed-post, receipt of which has also been proved along with tracking report, which was never returned to the office of the complainant. Therefore, it will be presumed that notice was served to the petitioner. Moreover, if notice was not served, he might have discharged the loan amount within 15 days from the date of his appearance after receiving the summons. All the pleas taken by the petitioner brand him as a dishonest drawer of the cheque. There are concurrent findings about guilt of the petitioner and no legal infirmity has been pointed out calling for any interference in the impugned judgments. Therefore, this revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 9. I have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case. It appears that learned trial court as well as learned appellate court had discussed the evidence on oath of the complainant that bank loan was provided to the petitioner for purchasing a vehicle and loan account of the petitioner became overdue for Rs.1,23,540/- (Rs. One lakh twenty three thousand and five hundred forty) and in this regard, the accused/petitioner has issued a cheque bearing No.465513 dated 21.01.2015, which was deposited for encashment but dishonored due to 2026:JHHC:16765 Cr. Revision No.1089 of 2017 6 ‘insufficient fund’. Thereafter, legal notice dated 23.01.2015 was issued to the petitioner through registered speed-post, but he did not make the payment. Thereafter, the complaint case was lodged. Learned trial court has dealt with the ingredients of offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and presumption in favour of the holder propounded under section 139 of N.I. Act, which provides that “It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. The presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act is to be read with the presumption laid down under section 118 of the Act and also the presumption given in Sec. 146 of the Act regarding banks slips evidence”. 10. It appears that in the cross-examination of the complainant, the petitioner has not cross-examined as regards existing liability and denial of loan amount or even issuing the cheque under his signature and for which loan, he has submitted the cheque as security. The question of non-receipt of notice and its consequence has also not been disputed either before the learned trial court or learned appellate court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee reported in 2001 6 SCC 16 has held that “the presumption under sections 138, 139 and 118 are rebuttable in nature. However, the 2026:JHHC:16765 Cr. Revision No.1089 of 2017 7 burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for debt or liability is on the accused”. Learned appellate court has also upheld the judgment passed by learned trial court. 11. I have considered the overall aspects of the case, the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner but find no legal substance in the argument of petitioner and no merits in this revision. There appears no valid reason to take a different view from the learned trial court and upheld by learned appellate court. Therefore, this revision appears to be devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any passed in this case, stands vacated. 13. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 14. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 10/06/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 11/06 /2026