SHRINIVAS SURYANARAYAN NAIDU ALIAS NAYDUversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:6936


                                                     {1}                  REVN 227 of 2025


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 227 OF 2025
                             WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2657 OF 2025
                                          IN REVN/227/2025
                    .     Shrinivas Suryanarayan Naidu @ Naydu
                          Age: 51 years, Occu.: Business,
                          R/o. Plot No.2698, Flat No.G-1,
                          Collector Colony, Near Gajanan Mandir,
                          Godhani, (Railway), Nagpur -441111        ….Applicant

                                Versus

                    1.    The State of Maharashtra

                    2.    Anil Prabhakar Khare
                          Age: 49 years, Occu.: Business,
                          R/o. C-2, C-94, N-7, Cidco,
                          Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.                ….Respondents
                                                     …..
                    Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Vishal Amritlal Bagdiya
                    APP for Respondent no.1 : Mr.B.V.Virdhe
                    Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Navin Shah h/f.
                                                   Mr.Swapnil Shashikant Patil
                                                    …..
                                         CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                         RESERVED ON  : 16 FEBRUARY, 2026
                                         PRONOUNCED ON : 17 FEBRUARY, 2026

                    JUDGMENT :


                    1.    Revision petitioner (original accused), who stood convicted by

                    learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), (Court Room No.22),

                    Aurangabad, in SCC No.4741 of 2015, for offence under Section 138
                                  {2}                    REVN 227 of 2025


of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), and the said judgment,

which further came to be confirmed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2018 by judgment

and order dated 24-06-2025, is questioning both above orders by

way of instant revision.


2.    In short, brief background of the case is that, present

respondent no.2 Anil Prabhakar Khare (original complainant)

instituted proceedings under Sections 138 of the NI Act, against

present revisionist on the premise that, due to cordial and friendly

relations, complainant had extended Rs.7,00,000/- to accused to

clear outstanding dues towards Shriram Finance Company i.e. in the

form of two cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively.

Accused executed undertaking to repay the loan and duly issued two

cheques worth Rs.3,50,000/- lakh each. Out of these two cheques,

complainant deposited cheque bearing no.018170 dated 27-04-2015

in the bank, but it was returned dishonoured on the ground of “funds

insufficient”, and therefore, after legal notice, when there was failure

to pay the cheque amount, above SCC proceedings was instituted,

wherein accused appeared and resisted on the ground of want of

notice and secondly, false case being instituted.
                                  {3}                     REVN 227 of 2025


      After appreciating evidence adduced by both the sides, learned

JMFC was pleased to convict revisionist for offence under Section

138 by its judgment and order dated 23-02-2018.

      Feeling aggrieved by the above, accused further moved Court

of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, but by judgment

and order dated 24-6-2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

confirmed the order of conviction and dismissed the appeal.

      Dissatisfied by the above, present revision has been filed by

invoking Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).


3.    This being revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., it would

be fruitful to spell-out the scope for this Court while entertaining

revisionary powers.

      While exercising powers under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., this

court is merely expected to test the legality, propriety or illegality in

the findings recorded by learned trial court. Such powers are to be

exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and when there are glaring

errors on the face of order or there is failure and non compliance of

law. Re-appreciation is to be avoided unless findings are patently

perverse and as such, is the narrow scope of revisional court. Law

regarding the scope of revision is elucidated in catena of judgments.
                                  {4}                     REVN 227 of 2025


Though there are catena of judgments, the landmark judgment of

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460 is

relied and the relevant observations therein are borrowed and quoted

as under :


      “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
      power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
      court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
      and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
      The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect
      or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well -
      founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court
      to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a
      token of careful consideration and appear to be in
      accordance with law. If one looks into the various
      judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
      jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
      challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance
      with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based
      on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
      discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are
      not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each
      case would have to be determined on its own merits."


4.    Heard each of the sides to their satisfaction.
                                    {5}                 REVN 227 of 2025


5.    Present revisionist has refuted borrowing of hand-loan to the

tune of Rs.7,00,000/-. At the same time, he has also set up a case

that, cheques issued by way of security are misused and third ground

raised is that there was no legally enforceable debt and lastly, there

was no service of legal notice.


6.    On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent would point

out that, on the strength of overwhelming evidence of complainant

himself and three other witnesses, case is substantiated.          That,

accused had issued undertaking acknowledging the hand-loan and in

pursuance to this, issued two cheques in question, out of which, one

was apparently dishonoured and bank witness came to be examined

on that count.      He further pointed out that, here, there are

concurrent findings of the learned trial court as well as learned First

Appellate Court confirming the guilt of accused. For above reasons,

he urges to dismiss the revision.


      To supports his case, learned counsel for respondent no.2

relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

T.Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumari, (2015) 5 SCR 342; T.P.Murugan

(Dead) Thr.Lrs. v. Bojan (2018) 9 SCR 355; I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena

Shabeer and Another, (2002) 6 Supreme 25; and C.C.Alavi Haji v.
                                  {6}                 REVN 227 of 2025


Palapetty Muhammed and Another, (2007) 7 SCR 326 . He also relied

on decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Prasad Raykar

v. B.T.Dinesh (2023) 1 CriCC 630.


7.     After considering the above submissions and on going through

record, it seems that SCC proceedings was instituted by present

respondent no.2 against present revision petitioner alleging that

there were cordial relations with accused and on his demand of

amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for payment of outstanding dues to accused

towards Shriram Finance Company, he had handed over cheques of

Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively by way of hand-loan.

That, accused issued undertaking to repay and towards repayment,

he issued two cheques, out of which, one of the cheques was

dishonoured.    In support of his such case, record shows that,

respondent has filed his own evidence at exh.21, adduced evidence

of Rajaram Hariram Sanodiya at exh.53, Yousuf Ismail Shaikh at

exh.57 and Sanjay Laxman Chinchole at exh.65 apart from relying on

documentary evidence comprising of both cheques in question, copy

of passbook of complainant, copy of passbook of mother of accused,

copy   of   notice,   postal   acknowledgment   and   statement      of

complainant’s bank account.
                                 {7}                    REVN 227 of 2025


8.    Here, it is noticed that, firstly issuance of cheque as well as

signature over it are not denied or refuted by accused before both the

Courts below. Therefore, initial presumptions under the NI Act got

automatically attracted.


9.    As regards to objection of want of notice is concerned, it seems

that complainant has placed on record postal acknowledgment,

which is an R.P.A.D. and address over the same is the same which is

reflected over the complaint as well as on the Vakalatnama of

accused. Above all, said address is also reflected on warrant, which

was required to be issued against accused. Therefore, there is no

error on the part of learned trial Court in holding that there is due

notice to the accused.


10.   As regards to the second objection of legally enforceable debt is

concerned, here, complainant has adduced his own evidence and has

also adduced evidence of three more witnesses. Their testimony has

not been dislodged. There is an undertaking by accused and the

same has also remained intact. It is noticed that, apart from above

stand, accused has also put-forth a case of misuse of blank cheques,

which allegedly tendered by way of security, but except taking such

plea, in which transaction, above cheques were issued as security, has
                                  {8}                    REVN 227 of 2025


not been demonstrated by accused.


11.    When there was material to draw some presumption available

under the NI Act, accused was expected to discharge the same with

rebuttal evidence, which is apparently not forthcoming. On the other

hand, complainant has supported his contention and averments by

adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, it does not lie in

the mouth of accused that there was no legally enforceable debt and

that Courts below have erred. In fact, as submitted, here, there are

two Courts, who have recorded concurrent findings confirming

offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and as such, there is no

reason for this Court to interfere in concurrent findings when it is not

demonstrated how both Courts have erred and in what manner. No

case being made out on merits, revision application deserves to be

dismissed. Hence, following order :

                                ORDER
      (I)    Criminal Revision Application No.227 of 2025 is
              dismissed.
      (II)   Pending Criminal Application No.2657 of 2025 is
             disposed of.
      (III) Respondent no.2 is permitted to withdraw the amount
            deposited by the accused in the trial Court.

                                        ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
SPT                                            JUDGE