IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.393 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2015 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

Patna

======================================================

Kanak Kumari S/O Shri Anil Singh R/O Chaudhary Niwas, P.S.- Sultanganj,

Dist.- Patna

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar

2.Satyendra Kumar Singh S/O Sudeshwar Singh R/O 301, Dayanand

Complex, Nehru nagar, P.s.- Patliputra, Patna- 800013

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate

Mr.Shambhu Shankar Thakur, Advocate

For the State : Mr.Braj Kishore Pd., APP

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 14-08-2026

The instant revision is directed against the

judgment dated 15.01.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of

2023 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-

V, Patna, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court

partly upheld the judgment of conviction and modified the order

of sentence dated 03.06.2023 passed by learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate-X, Patna in Complaint Case No. 167

of 2015 by which the learned trial court convicted the

petitioner/appellant for the offence under Section 138 of

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

2/25

Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the N.I.

Act') by sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for six months

and further imposed a compensatory fine of Rs.12,70,000/- and

in default thereof further simple imprisonment of one month.

The learned appellate court modified the order of sentence by

setting aside the imprisonment and reducing the compensatory

fine to Rs.10,00,000/- with condition to undergo imprisonment

of one month in case of failure in paying said fine,

02. Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the

record are that the opposite party no. 2 filed Complaint Case

No. 167 of 2015 against the petitioner and her husband Anil

Singh for commission of offence under Sections 406, 467, 468,

471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I.

Act. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 is said to be a friend

of the petitioner and her husband Anil Singh. The petitioner and

her husband were in need of money on 15.01.2014 to meet their

business need as well as for other requirements and on their

demand, the opposite party no. 2 extended a friendly loan to the

tune of Rs.6,35,000/- to the petitioner and her husband on their

undertaking to repay the same within six months. This amount

was paid by opposite party no. 2 in three installments. But the

petitioner and her husband did not return the amount of

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

3/25

Rs.6,35,000/- in six months as promised by them. However,

after much persuasion, the petitioner and her husband agreed to

return the money and this petitioner issued an account payee

cheque No. 455502 dated 20.11.2014 of State Bank of India,

Mahendru Branch, Ashok Raj Path, P.S. Pirbahore, Patna. When

the opposite party no. 2 presented the cheque in his account, it

was dishonoured and returned with a bank memo dated

27.11.2014 with endorsement of 'insufficient fund'. Thereafter,

the complainant gave a legal notice dated 20.12.2014 to the

petitioner and her husband requesting them to make payment of

the amount of Rs.6,35,000/- taken as friendly loan. This notice

was replied by the petitioner through Advocate and in reply it

has been stated that the petitioner lost the aforesaid dishonoured

cheque on 19.12.2013 and a Sanha was lodged before

Sultanganj Police Station on 20.12.2013 and her bank was also

informed to stop payment. Thus, the opposite party no. 2

claimed in his complaint petition that the contents of the reply to

legal notice showed the intention of cheating and fraud by the

petitioner and her husband and under a conspiracy, the cheque

was issued by the petitioner for which they claimed to have

lodged a Sanha. Thus, from the very beginning the petitioner

and her husband had intended to cheat the opposite party no. 2

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

4/25

on the pretext of taking a friendly loan, getting the said amount

of Rs.6,35,000/- from the opposite party no. 2 and

misappropriating the same and dishonestly converting the

money of the opposite party no. 2 to their own use. Thus, the

petitioner and her husband cheated and deceived the

complainant. The petitioner was summoned to face trial under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The substance of accusation for

Section 138 of the N.I. Act was explained to the petitioner on

10.11.2015 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

03. After recording the evidence of both sides, the

learned trial court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-X,

Patna vide its judgment dated 03.06.2023 convicted the

petitioner for the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and

by the order of the same date, sentenced the petitioner for a term

of imprisonment of six months with compensation amount of

Rs.12.70,000/-as fine. In default of fine, the petitioner was

ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of one month.

04. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing

Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2023 in the Sessions Court and vide

judgment dated 15.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2023,

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

5/25

the learned appellate court upheld the judgment and conviction

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, the learned

appellate court modified the order of sentence of imprisonment

and payment of fine passed by the learned trial court in the

following manner:-

"(a) The learned appellate court set aside

the order of sentence for simple

imprisonment for a period of six months,

and;

(b) The order of learned trial court

sentencing the petitioner to pay fine of

Rs.12,70,000/- was reduced to the amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- and total fine amount was

directed to be paid to opposite party no. 2

within three months from the date of the

order. The default sentence was not

disturbed that in case of default the

petitioner was to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month."

Thus, the learned appellate court partly allowed

and disposed of the appeal. Against the judgment of appellate

court, the petitioner has come before this Court in the present

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

6/25

revision petition.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the impugned judgment is bad in law as well as on facts.

The learned subordinate courts have not correctly appreciated

the evidence of the complainant and also of the defence. The

learned subordinate courts have not applied their judicial mind

to the facts and circumstances of the case as well also the

provisions of law. The learned subordinate courts failed to

consider that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability

for which cheque in question was purported to have been issued

by the petitioner. The learned subordinate courts erred on the

point of their presumption with respect to discharge of liability

on the part of the petitioner and thus, this finding is bad in the

eyes of law as there was no legally enforceable debt. The

learned subordinate courts failed to consider properly the

presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act which

is a rebuttable presumption. The learned subordinate courts

failed to appreciate that once the petitioner has established her

defence, the burden shifted to the opposite party no.

2/complainant to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

From the evidence brought on record by the

complainant/opposite party no. 2, it was necessary for him to

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

7/25

establish that he had given a friendly loan but there was no

clinching evidence still, the learned subordinate courts did not

consider this aspect. Once the petitioner discharged the onus and

rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, it

was for the complainant/opposite party no. 2 to prove his case

beyond any reasonable doubt considering the criminal nature of

provision under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. But the opposite

party no. 2 failed to prove his case and learned subordinate

courts failed to appreciate that though the petitioner has

discharged her onus and rebutted the presumption under Section

139 of the N.I. Act, the opposite party no. 2 did not prove his

case beyond reasonable doubt.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner next

submitted that it is the case of the petitioner from very

beginning that the cheque in question was lost for which Sanha

has been registered and said Sanha has been brought on record

as Ext. D(1). Thereafter, the petitioner gave instructions to her

bank for stopping payment of the cheque in question, i.e.,

cheque no. 455502 and the document in this regard has been

marked as Ext. D 3/1. Learned counsel further submitted that

the learned subordinate courts also failed to take into

consideration the return memo, Ext. 2, which neither bore any

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

8/25

signature nor seal of the bank but this fact was not considered.

Even the cheque in question had never been sent to the bank of

the petitioner and therefore, her bank had not made any

endorsement over the cheque in question.

07. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Dasrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai

Patel, AIR 2022 SC 4961 held that the cheque must be issued

for a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or

presenting for it to constitute a violation of under Section 138 of

the N.I. Act further also in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat

Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, AIR 2008 SC 1325 has held that the

existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of

presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. In the present

case, the opposite party no. 2 failed to establish that he had any

legally enforceable debt at the time of refusal of encashment.

Learned counsel also relied on another decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of N. Vijay Kumar Vs. Vishwanath

Rao N., MANU/SC0541/2025 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that once such defence is established on part of the

accused, the burden shifts upon the complainant to prove his

case beyond reasonable doubt and if the complainant fails to

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

9/25

discharge this burden, the charge under Section 138 of the N.I.

Act could not stand. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the

impugned judgment resulted in the miscarriage of justice and

the same needs to be interfered with by this Court by setting

aside the judgments and orders of the learned subordinate

courts.

08. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

opposite party no. 2 vehemently contended that there is no merit

in the present revision petition. The defences taken by the

petitioner are completely frivolous and unsustainable. The

learned subordinate courts considered these defences and

rejected the same. Once a cheque has been issued, the

presumption is that it is issued for discharge of liability and

unless the person issuing the cheque rebutted this presumption,

onus would not shift to the complainant. Learned counsel

further submitted that the return memo is a document of Punjab

National Bank and it contains the seal of the bank at the top on

the right hand side. Learned counsel further submitted that there

is initial of the bank official at the bottom right and date has also

been stamped which is 14.11.2014. Learned counsel further

submitted that it is wrong to say that the cheque was never

presented for encashment as the return memo shows it was

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

10/25

returned for 'insufficient fund' and not on account of 'stop

payment'.. The cheque is on record and it is duly singed by the

petitioner and unless it was presented before the banker of the

petitioner, the banker of the opposite party no. 2 could not have

issued the return memo. Learned counsel further submitted that

the learned subordinate courts have discussed each and every

aspect of the matter at length and thereafter recorded a

concurrent finding so far as the conviction of the petitioner is

concerned. However, the learned appellate court took a lenient

view and set aside the order of sentence of the petitioner and

even reduced the fine which is compensatory in nature. The

revisional court could not sit as a court of second appeal for re-

appreciating the facts to take a different view from the same

material on which finding has already been recorded by the two

courts against the petitioner. The revisional court could not

intervene in the matter unless there was manifest irregularity or

illegality or a case of impropriety or perversity. Now in the

present revision petition, the petitioner has failed to show any

such illegality or irregularity or impropriety, the impugned

judgment either of the learned appellate court or of the learned

trial court need no interference in this revision petition and the

same be affirmed by this Court.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

11/25

09. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submission of the parties.

10. At the outset, this Court would like to remind

itself about the scope of revisional jurisdiction and its inherent

limitations while exercising the power under Sections 438/442

of BNSS which read as under:-

"438. Calling for records to exercise powers

of revision. -- (1) The High Court or any

Sessions Judge may call for and examine the

record of any proceeding before any inferior

Criminal Court situate within its or his local

jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying

itself or himself as to the correctness,

legality or propriety of any finding, sentence

or order, recorded or passed, and as to the

regularity of any proceedings of such

inferior Court, and may, when calling, for

such record, direct that the execution of any

sentence or order be suspended, and if the

accused is in confinement that he be

released on his own bond or bail bond

pending the examination of the record.

Explanation.-All Magistrates,

whether Executive or Judicial, and whether

exercising original or appellate jurisdiction,

shall be deemed to be inferior to the

Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-

section and of section 439.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

12/25

(2) The powers of revision

conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be

exercised in relation to any interlocutory

order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or

other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this

section has been made by any person either

to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge,

no further application by the same person

shall be entertained by the other of them.

"442. High Court's powers of revision.-- (1)

In the case of any proceeding the record of

which has been called for by itself or which

otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High

Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of

the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal

by sections 427, 430, 431 and 432 or on a

Court of Session by section 344, and, when

the Judges composing the Court of revision

are equally divided in opinion, the case shall

be disposed of in the manner provided by

section 433.

(2) No order under this section

shall be made to the prejudice of the accused

or other person unless he has had an

opportunity of being heard either personally

or by advocate in his own defence.

(3) Nothing in this section shall

be deemed to authorise a High Court to

convert a finding of acquittal into one of

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

13/25

conviction.

(4) Where under this Sanhita an

appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no

proceeding by way of revision shall be

entertained at the instance of the party who

could have appealed.

(5) Where under this Sanhita an

appeal lies but an application for revision

has been made to the High Court by any

person and the High Court is satisfied that

such application was made under the

erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto

and that it is necessary in the interests of

justice so to do, the High Court may treat

the application for revision as a petition of

appeal and deal with the same accordingly."

The Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction to

see the correctness, illegality or impropriety of any order passed

by the inferior criminal court but this discretion would be

exercised only within the four corners of the aforesaid

provisions when there has been miscarriage of justice. While

exercising the revisional jurisdiction the court does not act like

an appellate court and is only concerned with illegality,

impropriety or correctness of the finding or conclusion of any

consideration of facts and any re-appreciation of evidence by

the revisional court is forbidden unless there appears some

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

14/25

perversity or manifest illegality in consideration of the facts or

evidence. Further, the revisional court should refrain from

substituting its conclusion on an elaborate consideration of

evidence and findings of the subordinate courts could not be

reversed and substituted solely on the ground that an alternative

view is possible on the facts of the case. Recently, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Kuntegowda vs Thurubaiah,

2026 INSC 790 in paragraph 7.3 has held as under:-

"7.3 The contours for exercise of revisional

jurisdiction has been well settled by the

judicial dicta of this Court wherein time and

again it has been observed that the High

Court shall not interfere with the orders of

the lower court unless:

i. The order or finding of the

lower court is perverse, grossly erroneous,

glaringly unreasonable or wholly unreliable

or untenable in law.

ii. The lower court has passed

the impugned order after considering an

immaterial or irrelevant material or no

material at all.

iii. There is a non-consideration

of any relevant material or the judicial

discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or

capriciously."

11. From the discussion made on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

15/25

parties and the perusal of record show, the signature of the

petitioner on the cheque is not in dispute. The petitioner admits

her signature on the cheque though she has taken a defence that

she misplaced the cheque and a sanha was registered in the

concerned police station. Now the witnesses examined on behalf

of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 have all stated about the

accused/petitioner handing over a cheque to opposite party

no.2/complainant. The same witnesses have also deposed about

the complainant/opposite party no. 2 giving a loan to the

accused/petitioner for an amount of Rs.6,35,000/- in three

installments. The learned trial court has taken note of this fact

and doubted the version of the petitioner and the learned

appellate court has also not taken a different view from the

learned trial court. It appears the petitioner gave an informatory

application to the SHO of Sultanganj Police Station about

missing of her signed cheques 19.12.2013 while going from her

house to the market. But in her deposition she stated about

losing of entire cheque book out of which two cheques were

signed. Further, no witness has been examined of the police

station so as to conclusively prove about receipt of the

informatory application in the police station. So filing of

informatory application itself appears doubtful and as a

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

16/25

consequence, the story of missing of cheques also comes within

the ambit of grave doubt. Both the learned subordinate courts

have taken a consistent view on this point and I do not find any

reason to take a different view. Further, the defence taken by the

petitioner is that she had already informed her bank asking to

stop payment in connection with two missing cheques bearing

nos. 455501 and 455502 and she also produced Ext. D2 and

D2/1 which is the information received from her bank about

stopping the payment of missing cheques bearing nos. 455501

and 455502 of 19.12.2013. Again this contention has been

discussed in detail by the learned subordinate courts and

rejected by them, in my opinion, for perfectly valid reasons. If

the petitioner has lost the cheques and she was having sufficient

fund on the date of execution of the cheque, the endorsement on

the memo of return Ext. 2 would not have been due to

'insufficient fund'. If the petitioner was having sufficient fund in

her account on the date, she could have shown with the help of

relevant documents and with proper evidence that the cheques

were not honoured due to her instructions of 'stop payment'.

Again no bank official has been examined to check the veracity

of Ext. D2 and D2/1. Non-corroboration of the documents

produced in defence by the petitioner weighed heavily in the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

17/25

mind of the learned subordinate courts and this defence was

rejected by the reasoned order. Therefore, the defence taken by

the petitioner on the aforesaid count is also not sustainable.

12. Further, defence has also been taken about the

return memo, Ext. 2, not being a genuine document and it being

forged and fabricated. But the return memo Ext. 2 was not

claimed to be forged and fabricated by the petitioner either

before the learned trial court or before the learned appellate

court. Since the cheque was presented for encashment before

the Punjab National Bank, the submission that it does not bear

any endorsement from State Bank of India, the bank of the

petitioner, is not of significance. It is claimed that the return

memo does not bear the name of the bank or the signature of the

authorized official. However, during argument it has been

pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

opposite party no. 2 that the return memo is from Punjab

National Bank and at the top there appears the seal of branch of

the Punjab National Bank and at the bottom right there is initial

of the authorized official. So even on this count, the defence of

the petitioner could not be sustained.

13. Further, defence taken by the petitioner is that

the learned subordinate courts have not taken into consideration

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

18/25

the fact that there was no legally enforceable debt and

presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act were

not taken into consideration in its true spirit. The contention of

the petitioner is that by showing sufficient defence in her favour,

she has discharged her liability and the onus has shifted to the

opposite party no. 2 to establish his case beyond reasonable

doubt.

Now, Section 118 of the N.I. ACt reads as under:-

"118. Presumptions as to negotiable

instruments.— Until the contrary is

proved, the following presumptions

shall be made:—

(a) of consideration —

that every negotiable instrument was

made or drawn for consideration, and

that every such instrument, when it

has been accepted, indorsed,

negotiated or transferred, was

accepted, indorsed, negotiated or

transferred for consideration;

(b) as to date — that

every negotiable instrument bearing a

date was made or drawn on such

date;

(c) as to time of

acceptance —that every accepted bill

of exchange was accepted within a

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

19/25

reasonable time after its date and

before its maturity;

(d) as to time of transfer

—that every transfer of a negotiable

instrument was made before its

maturity;

(e) as to order of

indorsements —that the indorsements

appearing upon a negotiable

instrument were made in the order in

which they appear thereon;

(f) as to stamps —that a

lost promissory note, bill of exchange

or cheque was duly stamped;

(g) that holder is a

holder in due course —that the

holder of a negotiable instrument is a

holder in due course:

Provided that, where the

instrument has been obtained from its

lawful owner, or from any person in

lawful custody thereof, by means of an

offence or fraud, or has been obtained

from the maker or acceptor thereof by

means of an offence or fraud, or for

unlawful consideration, the burden of

proving that the holder is a holder in

due course lies upon him."

So, there is presumption that every negotiable

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

20/25

instrument is made for a consideration. In the present case, there

is admission by the petitioner that the cheque was signed by her,

then the presumption arises that cheque was drawn for

consideration. There is presumption with regard to the date on

which the cheques were drawn or issued unless the contrary is

proved. The last statutory presumption under Section 118(g) of

the N.I. Act which is quite relevant is that every holder of the

negotiable instrument is considered to be a holder in due course,

i.e., he presumed to have issued the consideration for the

instrument and in good faith.

No doubt all these presumptions are rebuttable but

the presumption could be rebutted only with cogent evidence

which must be plausible and to the satisfaction of the court.

14. Similarly, Section 139 of the N.I. Act reads as

under:-

"139. Presumption in favour of holder. -- I

shall be presumed, unless the contrary is

proved, that the holder of a cheque received

the cheque, of the nature referred to in

section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in

part, of any debt or other liability."

Thus, under this provision there is presumption that

the holder of the cheque has received it for the discharge of debt

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

21/25

or other liability.

15. The presumption envisaged under Section 139

of the N.I. Act is a mandatory presumption considering the use

of word 'shall'. Unless contrary is proved, this presumption will

hold ground. Therefore, to rebut this presumption under

Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act it was incumbent upon the

petitioner to disprove the same by leading evidence, either

direct or direct, to the effect that there was no consideration or

debt in existence or that non-existence of the debt or

consideration was so probable that any prudent man would have

believed its non-existence.

16. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is

evident that the petitioner has admitted her signature on the

cheque. But, at the same time, she had raised the defence about

missing cheque, making request to her bank to stop payment

and there being no legally enforceable debt or liability. In the

preceding paragraph the defence about missing cheque and

instructions of the petitioner about stopping payment have

already been dealt with and disbelieved by this Court. So far as

the existence or non-existence of debt or liability is concerned,

the opposite party no. 2 has proved its case by leading oral

evidence on this point. On the other hand, the petitioner has

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

22/25

examined only herself and did not even examine her husband,

who was made a co-accused in the complaint case and also

stated to have involved in all the transactions. Therefore, there is

no defence evidence of significance on record so as to convince

the Court about the defence of the petitioner.

17. Now, Section 138 of the N.I. Act is apt to be

extracted here:-

"138. Dishonour of cheque for

insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.

—Where any cheque drawn by a person on

an account maintained by him with a banker

for payment of any amount of money to

another person from out of that account for

the discharge, in whole or in part, of any

debt or other liability, is returned by the

bank unpaid, either because of the amount of

money standing to the credit of that account

is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it

exceeds the amount arranged to be paid

from that account by an agreement made

with that bank, such person shall be deemed

to have committed an offence and shall,

without prejudice to any other provisions of

this Act, be punished with imprisonment for

a term which may be extended to two years,

or with fine which may extend to twice the

amount of the cheque, or with both:

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

23/25

Provided that nothing

contained in this section shall apply unless—

(a) the cheque has been

presented to the bank within a period of six

months from the date on which it is drawn or

within the period of its validity, whichever is

earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in

due course of the cheque, as the case may

be, makes a demand for the payment of the

said amount of money by giving a notice in

writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within

thirty days of the receipt of information by

him from the bank regarding the return of

the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque

fails to make the payment of the said amount

of money to the payee or, as the case may be,

to the holder in due course of the cheque,

within fifteen days of the receipt of the said

notice.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this

section, “debt or other liability” means a

legally enforceable debt or other liability."

For an offence to be made out under Section 138 of

the N.I. Act the aforesaid condition must be fulfilled.

18. In the present case, from perusal of the record, I

find that cheque no, 455502 was issued on dated 20.11.2014.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

24/25

The same was presented before the Punjab National Bank by

opposite party no. 2 on dated 27.11.2014. The said cheque was

dishonoured for want of fund vide return memo dated

27.11.2014 of the Punjab National Bank. A legal notice was

issued on dated 20.12.2014 and a demand was made through

legal notice. Ultimately, on reply not being made within 15 days

of the receipt of the legal notice, complaint case No. 167(c) of

2015 was filed before the court of learned Chief Judicial

magistrate, Patna on dated 08.01.2015. So, all the ingredients of

Section 138 of the N.I. Act are present for prosecuting the

petitioner.

19. Once the opposite party no. 2 has satisfied the

conditions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the burden of proof

shifted to the petitioner to prove her defence and to show that

offence under the said provision was not made out. Whatever

defence has been brought on record by the petitioner, the same

only appears to be a feeble attempt to put up a defence like a

drowning man catching a straw. If the petitioner has failed in

her efforts to prove her defence, the burden never shifted to

opposite party no. 2.

20. The aforesaid discussion clearly goes on to

show that the petitioner has failed to make out a case to

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.393 of 2025 dt.14-08-2026

25/25

convince this Court to interfere with the orders of the learned

appellate court and consequently with the orders passed by the

learned trial court. In the light of discussion made so far, the

reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on

Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra), Dasrathbhai Trikambhai

Patel (supra) and N. Vijay Kumar (supra) are not of any help to

the counsel of the petitioner. Therefore, in the light of

discussion made hereinbefore, I do not find any reason to

interfere with the impugned orders dated 15.01.2025 and

03.06.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2023 and

Complaint Case No. 167 of 2015, respectively and the same are

affirmed.

21. Accordingly, the present revision petition

stands dismissed.

22. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,

stand(s) disposed of.

DKS/-

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

AFR/NAFR NAFR

CAV DATE 07.07.2026

Uploading Date 14.08.2026

Transmission Date 14.08.2026