| |
CDJ 2026 Utt HC 108
|
| Court : High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Case No : CRLR. No. 749 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
| Parties : Satish Semwal Versus State Of Uttarakhand |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Devang Dobhal, learned counsel. For the Respondent: Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. |
| Date of Judgment : 25-09-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
2. Catch Words:
- limitation
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- fine
- cheque
- negotiable instruments
- criminal revision
3. Summary:
The revisionist appealed against the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a dishonoured cheque. He contended that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was not served within the prescribed period, rendering the complaint time‑barred. The State argued that the cheque was duly issued and the signature undisputed, but did not contest the bail status. The Court, without opining on the merits of the revision, noted the revisionist’s willingness to deposit the cheque amount and granted bail. The sentence was suspended subject to a deposit of ₹2,00,000 within three weeks. Conditions for bail, including personal bond and sureties, were imposed. Non‑compliance would permit the complainant to seek recall of bail. The exemption application was also allowed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi in Criminal Case No. 265 of 2024 has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court have been affirmed. By the judgment dated 08.07.2025, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 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 and to pay a fine of ₹5,25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist has been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
4. Admit the revision.
5. Issue notice to the respondent no.2, returnable at an early date.
6. Let the Lower Court Record be summoned.
7. Heard on the bail application (IA No. 2 of 2026).
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that both the courts below have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and have recorded the conviction of the revisionist in disregard of the material brought on record by the defence. He would further submit that the cheque in question was not issued by the revisionist in favour of the complainant towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability.
9. He would further submit that the complainant, in his statement, has referred to three separate cheques. In respect of the cheque amounting to ₹1,00,000/-, it is the complainant's own case that the said cheque was dishonoured by the bank on 07.01.2025, however, the statutory notice contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was not issued within the prescribed period from the date of receipt of information regarding the dishonour of the cheque; that, rather, the notice demanding payment was allegedly issued after a period of three months; that, thus, the complaint, insofar as it relates to the cheque amounting to ₹1,00,000/-, is barred by the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act and is not maintainable in law.
10. He would further submit that the revisionist remained on bail during the pendency of the trial as well as the criminal appeal and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. He would submit that the revisionist is ready and willing to pay the entire cheque amount and, accordingly, prays for suspension of the sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the present criminal revision.
11. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application and would submit that the cheque in question was issued by the revisionist and that the signature thereon is not disputed, therefore, the revisionist is liable to discharge the financial liability arising out of the dishonoured cheque and to deposit the amount of fine imposed by the courts below. However, learned State Counsel does not dispute the fact that the revisionist remained on bail during the trial as well as during the pendency of the criminal appeal and that there is no allegation of misuse of the liberty granted to him.
12. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
13. Be that as it may, considering the submission made on behalf of the revisionist that he is ready and willing to deposit the amount in question, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the present criminal revision, this Court is of the view that the revisionist has made out a case for grant of bail during the pendency of the present criminal revision.
14. Accordingly, the sentence awarded against the revisionist shall remain suspended, subject to the revisionist depositing a sum of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today.
15. Accordingly, the bail application (I.A. No. 2 of 2026) is allowed.
16. Let the revisionist be released on bail during the pendency of the present criminal revision, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to such other conditions as the said court may deem fit and proper to impose. The deposit directed hereinabove shall be subject to the final outcome of the present criminal revision and shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
17. It is made clear that, in the event the revisionist fails to comply with the aforesaid condition within the stipulated period, the complainant shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before this Court for recall of the order granting of bail, in accordance with law.
18. The exemption application is also allowed.
19. List this case in due course.
|
| |
