Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8157 (UTT)

MOHD AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

CRLR/517/2026 · 2026-07-16

Alok Mahra

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010118852026 2026:UHC:5881 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/517/2026 Mohd Ahmad --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. S.C. Dumka and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Present criminal revision has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist came to be dismissed and the judgment and order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.10380 of 2018 was affirmed. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The revisionist was further directed to pay a fine of ₹15,10,000/-, out of which ₹15,00,000/- was directed to be paid to respondent no.2 by way of compensation, while the remaining amount of ₹10,000/- was directed to be deposited in the State Treasury. 3. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the UKHC010118852026 2026:UHC:5881 respondent and carefully perused the record of the case, including the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. 4. From the material available on record, it is evident that the respondent no.2- complainant succeeded in establishing all the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issuance of the cheques by the revisionist, their presentation within the period of validity, their dishonour on account of “insufficient funds”, issuance of statutory demand notices within the prescribed period, and failure of the revisionist to make payment within the stipulated time stand duly proved. The learned trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding of guilt against the revisionist. The said findings were independently re-appreciated by the learned appellate Court, which concurred with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. 5. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited in scope. Unless the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality, perversity, material irregularity, or miscarriage of justice, this Court would not be justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact. In the present case, both the Courts below have meticulously appreciated the evidence available on record and have assigned cogent and convincing reasons for recording the conviction of the revisionist. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the appreciation of evidence or in the conclusions drawn by the Courts below. 6. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as affirmed by appellate judgment and order UKHC010118852026 2026:UHC:5881 dated 25.05.2026 passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and correct application of law. The findings recorded therein are well reasoned and do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Consequently, the Criminal Revision, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 16.07.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C510 9CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.17 10:43:52 +05'30'