2026:JHHC:21542 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 652 of 2016 -------- Tarachand Pandey, son of Late Chotelal Pandey, resident of Ashadeep Apartment, Flat No.C/5, Purulia Road, Jorar, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Bank of Baroda, through its Manager, Hesag Branch, Ranchi, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi … … Opp. Parties ----- P R E S E N T CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate Mr. Parth Sarthi, Advocate -------- C.A.V. on 29.06.2026 Pronounced on 20/07/2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2016, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 562 of 2011 under Section 138 of N.I. Act convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and directing to undergo S.I. for four months along with fine of compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been confirmed and upheld by dismissing the appeal. 2026:JHHC:21542 2 Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the Bank of Baroda, Hesag Branch, Ranchi through its Manager lodged the above complaint case stating inter alia that the complainant has extended cash credit facility to Mr. Prashant Kumar Jha, proprietor of M/s. Scorpion Teletech Inc. for limit of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is alleged that the present petitioner Tarachand Pandey had executed General Form of guarantee and thereby bound himself jointly and severally liable for payment of dues of principal borrower. It is further alleged by the complaint that when Prashant Kumar Jha failed to clear the dues, the appellant being guarantor issued Cheque No.292901 dated 29.09.2010 drawn on Union Bank of India, Namkum Branch, Ranchi of Rs. 50,000/-. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant in his account, but was dishonoured with endorsement to the effect “exceeds arrangement”. The complainant send a registered notice on 19.12.2011 with acknowledgment due at the present and correct address of the accused, but no reply was given, hence, complaint case was instituted. 4. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused and issued summon against him, the accused appeared and contested the case. 5. In the course of trial, the complainant being authorized representative of the Bank examined himself as a witness and adduced following documentary evidence:- (i) Exhibit-1-Authorization letter of Sunil Kumar Singh (ii) Exhibit-2-Photo copy of General form of guarantee 2026:JHHC:21542 3 (iii) Exhibit-3-Cheque bearing No.292901 dated 29.01.2010 (iv) Exhibit-4-Return memo dated 28.01.2011 (v) Exhibit-5-Legal notice dated 18.02.2011 (vi) Exhibit-6-Postal receipt dated 19.02.2011 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by defence. 7. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record arrived at conclusion that the accused has issued the impugned cheque for discharging the loan of principal debtor and the liability of surety is coextensive with the principal debtor. Hence, it will be presumed that there was existing and enforceable debt/legal liability against the accused for which he has issued the impugned cheque in favour of complainant, which was not honored by the bank, therefore, finding sufficient evidence constituting the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused, he was held guilty and sentenced as stated above, which has also been upheld by the learned Appellate Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that no evidence was brought on record by the complainant regarding service of legal notice to the petitioner. Therefore, no cause of action ever arose in favour of complainant in view of Section 142 of the N.I. Act. The learned Trial Court has recorded an erroneous finding that the cheque was issued for discharging any existing debt or liability against the petitioner, rather he was simply a guarantor and without 2026:JHHC:21542 4 principal debtor being proceeded, therefore, no action should be taken against the guarantor for clearance of dues. Therefore, no presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act can be drawn against the petitioner as such impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and petitioner deserve to be acquitted from the charge leveled against him. Hence, this revision may be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it is trite that if the notice is claimed to be not received by the accused as envisaged under Section 138 N.I. Act, the proper course is that the accused must deposit the cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of summons. In the complaint case lodged by the complainant a dishonest drawer of cheque always take such technical grounds only with a view to frustrate the legal claim of the complainant, which could not be sustained. It is further argued that the liability of guarantor is coextensive with the principal debtor, therefore, the petitioner can’t escape his liability who stood as guarantor of M/s. Scorpion Teletech Inc. through its proprietor Mr. Prashant Kumar Jha. There are concurrent findings of learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court regarding guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which suffers from no illegality or impropriety calling for any interference in this revision, which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 10. I have gone through the judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. It appears that the sole ground 2026:JHHC:21542 5 taken by the petitioner pertains to non-receipt of notice and the complainant has also failed to prove the exact date of receipt of notice by him from which date, cause of action arises in favour of complainant. It appears that in the instant case, after sending legal notice, the complainant has waited for reasonable time affording sufficient opportunity to the accused to manage for payment of cheque amount. Mere plea of non-receipt of the legal notice can’t provide any premium to the accused to frustrate the genuine case of complainant. Under Section 27 of the General Causes Act, there is a presumption regarding delivery of a registered letter within 30 days from the date of its sending to the addressee, if the same does not return to the sender of the notice. The complainant has waited for aforesaid period plus 15 days additional time to discharge the liability, in respect of cheque amount, but neither the notice was replied nor payment was made. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint case suffers from any illegality or want of cause of action. It is also statutory duty of guarantor to discharge the liability of principal debtor and there is no requirement to proceed at first against the principal debtor in view of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, the liability of guarantor is coextensive with the principal debtor. 11. In view of above discussion and reasons, I don’t find any valid reasons for interference in the impugned judgment and orders passed by learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court and no merits in the revision, which stands dismissed. 12. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 2026:JHHC:21542 6 13. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 20/07/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 22/07/2026