RANCHI, India, Aug. 27 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 28:

Although both these criminal revisions have been tied up for hearing together, but since both arise out of different criminal cases, therefore, they are heard separately and will be disposed of by separate judgments.

Cr. Revision No. 546 of 2025

1. Instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Complaint Case No.325 of 2019 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act whereby and whereunder S.I. for six months and a fine of Rs.4,50,000/- has been imposed and judgment of conviction and sentence have been affirmed in appeal.

2. As per the case of the complainant/opposite party no.2, on different dates, petitioner had promised repaying it by postdated cheque bearing no.148545 dated 30.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, Cheque No.148547 of Rs.1,85,000/- and Cheque No.148554 dated 15.08.2019 for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- were drawn on United Bank of India, Ghatshila. Cheques were presented for payment which were dishonored for insufficiency of fund.

3. The complainant issued legal notice on 30.10.2019 and for its nonpayment, complaint case was filed on 18.11.2019. Learned trial Court after considering oral and documentary evidences, recorded the judgment of conviction which has been affirmed in appeal.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that petitioner and complainant are business partners and due to business transactions, accused had given signed cheques to the complainant, which has been used by the complainant.

Cr. Revision No. 498 of 2025

5. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Complaint Case No.290 of 2019 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- has been awarded in favour of the complaint. Judgment of conviction and sentence have been affirmed in appeal.

6. As per the case of the complainant, he runs a small stationary shop and the accused used to purchase the land and then sell the same to others with a good profit. Opposite party no.2 had taken Rs.1,50,000/- with an assurance of re-paying the same and to that end, cheque no.148556 for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 07.08.2019 drawn on United Bank of India, was given to the complainant. Complainant presented the cheque for payment on 05.09.2019 which was returned to the complainant on 12.09.2019 for insufficiency of funds. Legal notice was served on 21.09.2019.

7. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner and the complainant were business partners and thus, he misused the aforesaid cheque.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mode of paying the debt to the petitioner has not been disclosed at all in the complaint petition. It is also not clear that where the complainant had capacitated to pay the said amount.

9. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submits that the petitioner cannot take plea that there was no legally enforceable debt against which the cheque was issued. Once the cheque is proved, it is for the petitioner to rebut the presumption of legally enforceable debt.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x1RnQrLHH6dHSTQ%2BcIMLiL9hOaEqH8%2FM1N3jBN0aWc%2Fz&caseno=Cr.Rev./546/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010168242025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.