2026:UHC:4775 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No.448 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Prem Kaushal and Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocates for the revisionist. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2023, affirming the judgment and order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 1088 of 2013. By the aforesaid judgment dated 06.06.2023, the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,25,000/-. Out of the fine amount, a sum of ₹1,10,000/- was directed to be paid to respondent no.2 as compensation, whereas the remaining amount of ₹15,000/- was directed to be deposited in the State Treasury. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist was further directed to undergo two months' additional simple imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the complaint instituted by respondent no.2, is that the revisionist issued a cheque bearing date 07.11.2013 for a 2026:UHC:4775 sum of ₹1,10,000/- in favour of respondent no.2 towards discharge of his liability. Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured by the bank on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of the revisionist. Consequently, respondent no.2 caused a statutory demand notice dated 05.12.2013 to be issued to the revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, calling upon him to make payment of the cheque amount within the prescribed period. Despite service of the notice, the revisionist failed to make payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated time. Consequently, respondent no.2 instituted Complaint Case No. 1088 of 2013, on 24.12.2013. After recording the evidence adduced by the parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, vide judgment and order dated 06.06.2023, held the revisionist guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved thereby, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar. Learned Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence and consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 02.06.2026. Hence, the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the complaint itself was premature, inasmuch as, it was instituted before the expiry of the statutory period prescribed under Section 2026:UHC:4775 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is contended that the complaint could not have been filed before the cause of action had accrued upon the expiry of the period available to the drawer for making payment after receipt of the demand notice. 5. The aforesaid contention is devoid of merit. A perusal of the record reveals that the statutory notice demanding payment was issued on 05.12.2013 after dishonour of the cheque. Under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the drawer is required to make payment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the cause of action accrues in favour of the payee to institute the complaint. Learned Courts below have rightly held that the complaint was maintainable and no material has been brought on record by the revisionist to demonstrate that the complaint was instituted before the accrual of the cause of action. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist next contends that the cheque in question had been issued merely as a security and not in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, according to him, dishonour of such cheque would not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. The submission is misconceived and cannot be accepted. It is well settled that a cheque issued by way of security would also fall within the ambit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if, on the date of its presentation, a legally enforceable debt or liability subsists and 2026:UHC:4775 the cheque is dishonoured. Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that mere nomenclature of a cheque as a “security cheque” does not by itself take the transaction outside the purview of Section 138 of the Act. The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act operates in favour of the holder of the cheque, and the revisionist has failed to rebut the said statutory presumption by leading cogent evidence. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, In Re, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 116. 8. No other ground has been urged before this Court. Upon a careful examination of the impugned judgments and the material available on record, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error, perversity, illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have meticulously appreciated the evidence on record and have returned concurrent findings of fact, which do not suffer from any manifest infirmity. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. 10. Before parting, it may be observed that the cheque in question, amounting to ₹1,10,000/-, was dishonoured in the year 2013 and the complaint ultimately came to be decided after a lapse of nearly ten years. Although this Court finds that no interest component has been awarded on the cheque amount while determining compensation, the complainant has neither preferred any appeal nor challenged the adequacy of 2026:UHC:4775 compensation awarded by the trial Court. In the absence of any challenge by the complainant, this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the convict, cannot suo motu enhance the amount of compensation. Therefore, no further orders in that regard are called for. (Alok Mahra, J.) 15.06.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7 393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446 351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.06.15 17:42:46 +05'30'