2026:JHHC:18513 Cr. Revision No. 1111 of 2016 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 2016 …… Krishna Nand Saw, Son of Sri Jitan Saw, Permanent Resident of Vill-Siriyawa Tola, Dharampur, P.O. & P.S.-Mohenpur, Dist.- Gaya (Bihar) Pin Code 824232 at present residing at Upper Bazar, P.O.-G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi – 834001 (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anand Kumar, S/o Late Brahmdeo Saw, resident of Chunna Bhatta, Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) … Opp. Parties …… For the Petitioner : Mr. Badal Vishal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Adv. …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… ORDER C.A.V. on 10.06.2026 Pronounced on 24.06.2026 1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by Learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2012 whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Complaint Case No. 1855 of 2009 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month, along with a fine of Rs. 1,10,000/-, with default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:18513 Cr. Revision No. 1111 of 2016 Page | 2 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on demand of accused (present petitioner), complainant gave a friendly loan of Rs. 1,10,000/- and for repayment, the petitioner issued three cheques on demand of complainant for a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-, which were dishonored and the cheques were returned unpaid along with return memo dated 05.06.2009 disclosing insufficient fund standing in the account of the accused. The complainant issued legal demand notice dated 22.06.2009 and the same was received by the petitioner, however, the petitioner failed to discharge his liability. Hence, complainant lodged the Complaint Case No. 1855 of 2009. 3. The learned trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties convicted the petitioner and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with a fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- with default stipulation, against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal before learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision has been filed. 4. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.-2. 2026:JHHC:18513 Cr. Revision No. 1111 of 2016 Page | 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised main issue challenging the impugned judgment that Ext.-A (money receipt) of Rs. 1,10,000/- issued by Anand Kumar (C.W.-2) who is non-else but son of the complainant clearly displaces the complainant’s case. As per Ext.-A, the son of complainant Anand Kumar has undertaken to return back the three cheques amount received from his father in lieu of receiving the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- cash from the petitioner Sri Krishna Nand Saw. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court without referring any reasons to disbelieve the Ext.-A, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, which is absolutely illegal, perverse and not justified under law and liable to be set aside, as such, this revision may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 controverting the above submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the liability was owing against the complainant and not his son. The money receipt Ext.-A does not show as to discharge of liability in respect of complainant. The complainant was not interrogated and confronted with the Ext.-A during his examination. The stamp of Rs. 10 for manipulating the money receipt has been purchased in the name of complainant on 04.07.2009 but Ext.-A does not 2026:JHHC:18513 Cr. Revision No. 1111 of 2016 Page | 4 contain any date or averment regarding discharge of liability in respect of cheque amount issued in favour of complainant. P.W.-2 was also not confronted in his cross-examination about receipt of Rs. 1,10,000/- rather simply his signature and photo on the money receipt has been exhibited by the defence. Therefore, the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court has rightly held that Ext.-A has no relevance with the discharge of liability in respect of complainant for Rs. 1,10,000/-. Therefore, there are no merits in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the record of the case and perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 8. It appears that there is no dispute that on account of friendly relation, the complainant managed Rs. 1,10,000/- on request of the petitioner, which was handed over to him and in discharge of aforesaid liability, the petitioner had issued three cheques of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-, respectively. After complying legal formalities regarding sending of demand notice and affording opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the loan amount, the complaint case was lodged. It further appears that in the course of trial, the 2026:JHHC:18513 Cr. Revision No. 1111 of 2016 Page | 5 complainant was examined on 18.11.2010 but the money receipt Ext.-A was not produced before him showing that his son has already received the loan amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- and undertook to return three cheques. Similarly, P.W.-2 Anand Kumar (son of complainant) has also not been controverted during his cross-examination that he has received Rs. 1,10,000/- rather, simply his signature and photo has been marked Exhibit on the money receipt (Ext.-A). Therefore, it is quite obvious that the defence plea taken by the petitioner cannot be relied upon as effective and valid discharge of his liability as against the complainant. 9. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any legal force in the point of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner and no merits in this revision, which stands dismissed. 10. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 24/06/2026 Basant / NAFR Uploaded On: 25/06/2026