JEEVAN S/O. MADHUKAR SAWANEversusBANSILAL S/O. PURUSHOTTAM PRESSWALA

2026:BHC-AUG:43455


                                                                           114.19revn
                                                   (1)

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.114 OF 2019

                             JEEVAN S/O MADHUKAR SAWANE
                                         VERSUS
                        BANSILAL S/O PURUSHOTTAMDAS PRESSWALA
                                                  …..
                 Mr R. A. Jaiswal and Mr S. M. Biyani, Advocates for Applicant
                 Mr A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate for Respondent
                                                 …..
                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   RESERVED ON : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026

                              PRONOUNCED ON : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.          Heard learned Advocates Mr. Jaiswal and Mr Biyani for

                 the applicant and Mr. Kasliwal for the respondent.


                 2.          The applicant is challenging the impugned judgment and

                 order dated 05/04/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions

                 Judge, Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.158/2014. By the said

                 impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed

                 the conviction and sentence order dated 05/11/2014, passed by the

                 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, in S.C.C.

                 No.300/2007, thereby convicting the applicant for the offence

                 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
                                                              114.19revn
                                    (2)

and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and

directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to complainant towards compensation, in

default to pay the said amount, directed to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for six months.


3.            The facts of the case are as under :-

      (a)     Respondent is original complainant, who had filed

complaint against the applicant for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, which came to be registered as

S.C.C. No.300/2007.

      (b)     The respondent/complainant alleged in the complaint that,

at the request of accused/applicant, he had lent 200 grams of gold to

accused amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/-.         In pursuance of the same,

notarized agreement dated 16/12/2003 was also executed. Thereafter,

respondent/complainant had demanded the gold to accused.           The

accused, in discharge of said liability, issued cheque No.021583, dated

15/09/2006 for Rs.1,20,000/-. The said cheque was drawn on Devgiri

Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Aurangabad.                According to the

respondent/complainant, the said          cheque was dishonored on

19/10/2006.
                                                               114.19revn
                                   (3)

      (c)      Therefore,   the    complainant      issued   notice   to

applicant/accused on 18/11/2006 through the Advocate.          The said

notice was returned on 27/11/2006 with remark, “refused to accept”.

Therefore, the respondent/complainant filed case bearing S.C.C.

No.300/2007 on 10/01/2007 before the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class.

      (d)      The applicant/accused appeared in the Court of the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and pleaded not guilty. During

the trial, the respondent/complainant examined himself as PW-1 vide

Exh.22 and also examined one witness Mayur Ramniklal Shah vide

Exh.83 and closed his oral evidence.            The applicant had cross-

examined the complainant and his witness at length.

      (e)      According to the applicant, the said cheque in-question

was issued towards security in the year 2004, which later on, was

misused by the complainant in 2006. His another submission was that

the complaint is not filed within limitation.

      (f)      After the evidence of the parties, the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, convicted the applicant vide

impugned judgment and order dated 05/11/2014 and sentenced as

aforesaid.
                                                              114.19revn
                                  (4)

      (g)   Being aggrieved with the aforesaid conviction order, the

applicant herein has preferred Criminal Appeal No.158/2014 before

the learned Additional Sessions Court, Aurangabad, on 27/11/2014.

After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the

Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class and dismissed the appeal.


            Being aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent judgment and

orders, the applicant has approached to this Court under Section 397 of

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by filing instant Criminal

Revision Application.



4.          Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that both the

learned Courts below have passed the erroneous and illegal judgments,

which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He further submits that

the learned Courts below did not consider the evidence in proper

perspective. According to him, the learned Courts below failed to

consider the major mandatory aspect as regards the limitation

prescribed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He then

submits that the learned Courts below failed to consider that, no notice

under Section 138 was received by the applicant/accused, and
                                                              114.19revn
                                  (5)

therefore, the limitation counted by the learned Courts below for

taking cognizance of the complaint, is totally erroneous.



5.           Learned Advocate for the applicant further submits that

the respondent/complainant failed to prove that the applicant/accused

had issued the cheque towards the liability for recovery of any legally

enforceable date. He submits that the agreement at Exh.25 does not

disclose the details of the cheque in-question. The said cheque was

given to the respondent/complainant only for the purpose of security,

that too, in the year 2004, however, the same came to be misused by

the respondent/complainant. Therefore, according to him, the cheque

in-question has never been issued towards discharge of liability for the

recovery of legally enforceable debt.


6.           In support of his submissions, learned Advocate for the

applicant relies upon the judgment dated 29/07/2025, delivered by the

High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the matter of Noorudheen Vs.

State of Kerala and anr. (Criminal Revision Petition No.865/2023).

Thus, he prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment

and orders passed by the learned Courts below and prays for acquitting

the applicant.
                                                                114.19revn
                                    (6)

7.           Per contra, learned Advocate Mr Kasliwal for the

respondent vehemently opposes the instant criminal revision

application. At the outset, he submits that this Court, in exercise of its

revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon an in-depth roving

re-examination of the oral evidence and come to a conclusion contrary

to the consistent one reached by two Courts below. He further submits

that since learned Courts below have rendered concurrent findings of

conviction, the High Court may not substitute its own conclusion and

reasoning on the merits of the case. According to him, the judgments

passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate

Court are well reasoned and correct one, and therefore, no interference

is warranted by this Court. He further submits that this Court, in the

exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to delve deep into

the details of the testimonies, documents and merits of the case. He

then submits that this Court is exercising its revisional jurisdiction,

wherein it is not permissible to interfere with the judgments delivered

by the learned Courts below, unless a glaring contradiction or patent

illegality is apparent on the face of the record.


8.           To buttress his submission, Mr. Kasliwal relies upon the

following judgments :-
                                                             114.19revn
                                  (7)

(I)   Kuntegowda Vs. Thurubaiah, AIRONLINE 2026 SC 726;

(II) K.G. Kailasanathan Vs. Sajish Babu and anr., 2012 Cri. L.J.
4095;

(III) C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & anr., 2007 ALL
MR (Cri.)2044 (S.C.);

(IV) N. Paraeswaran Unni Vs. G. Kannan and Anr., 2017 (5) SCC
737;

(V) M/s Saketh India Ltd. and ors. Vs. M/s India Securities Ltd.,
1999(2) ALL MR 265

(VI) B. M. Basavaraj Vs. Srinivas S. Datta, 2016 DGLS(SC) 770;

(VII) M/s Kalamani Tex Vs. P. Balasubramanian, AIRONLINE 2021
SC 82

(VIII) D. K. Chandel Vs. M/s Wockhardt Ltd., AIRONLINE 2020 SC
469;

(IX) Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh, AIRONLINE 2023 SC 807

(X)   Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, 2019 DGLS (SC) 182

(XI) Rangappa Vs. Mohan, 2010 DGLS (SC) 1051;

(XII) Prakash Madhukarrao Desai Vs. Dattatraya Sheshrao Desai,
AIRONLINE 2023 BOM 1735


9.          As regards the merits of the matter, Mr. Kasliwal also

submits that the applicant/accused has issued the cheque towards the

discharge of liability of legally enforceable date. The complainant had
                                                              114.19revn
                                  (8)

filed Regular Civil Suit No.175/2012 before the learned 6 th Joint Civil

Judge Junior Division, Aurangabad for recovery of the dues of

Rs.1,41,000/- and interest from the applicant/accused, who was

defendant No.2 in the said suit. The issue therein as regards whether

the complainant/the plaintiff therein proved that gold weighing about

200 grams was lent to the applicant/accused [defendant therein], was

answered in affirmative. Thus, the said suit came to be decreed,

thereby directing the applicant/accused along with defendant No.1

therein to jointly or severally to pay an amount of Rs.1,41,000/- to

plaintiff (respondent herein) within a month from the date of the order.

The learned Advocate for the applicant/accused does not dispute the

passing of the aforesaid judgment by the Civil Court. Thus, according

to Mr Kasliwal, the transactions between the applicant as well as the

respondent/complainant have been fully established, and also the

liability towards the payment of the dues in respect of the transaction

between    the    parties   is   also   fully   established    by   the

respondent/complainant.     Therefore, Mr Kasliwal submits that the

applicant accused is liable to pay the amount as directed by learned

Courts below having established the case against him for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
                                                             114.19revn
                                  (9)

10.           After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective

parties, I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below.

I have also perused the record and proceedings of the trial Court as

well as the Appellate Court. The point that arises for my consideration

is whether the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below,

convicting the applicant for offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act are perverse, illegal, or suffer from any

patent error of law, and whether any interference is called for under

revisional jurisdiction. My answer to this point is in the negative for

the reasons that issuance of the cheque bearing No.021583 dated

15/09/2006 for Rs.1,20,000/- drawn on Devgiri Nagari Sahakari Bank

Limited, Aurangabad, is not disputed by the applicant. The signature

on the cheque is also not disputed by the applicant. The statutory

presumption under Section 139 and Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instruments     Act    clearly   operates    in    favour     of    the

respondent/complainant. The primary defence taken by the applicant

is that the cheque was given by way of security in the year 2004 and

has been subsequently misused by the complainant. However, the

applicant has miserably failed to adduce any cogent or convincing

evidence to rebut the strong statutory presumption operating in favour

of the complainant.
                                                              114.19revn
                                   (10)

11.          So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the

notice issued by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act was sent to the applicant. The postal remark clearly

indicates that the notice was refused by the applicant. Refusal to

accept the notice amounts to a valid and proper service in the eyes of

law, and therefore, the computation of limitation by the Trial Court and

the Appellate Court cannot be faulted.


12.          Furthermore,    the   respondent/complainant    had    also

instituted Regular Civil Suit No.175/2012 before the 6th Joint Civil

Judge Junior Division, Aurangabad, for recovery of dues amounting to

Rs.1,41,000/-. The said civil suit has been duly decreed by the Civil

Court, holding that the transaction regarding the lending of 200 grams

of gold to the applicant stands proved. The judgment and decree

passed by the Civil Court further reinforces the existence of a legally

enforceable debt or liability against the applicant.


13.          Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have

meticulously scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence on record.

The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on a proper

appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or

illegality. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under
                                                              114.19revn
                                  (11)

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

does not act as a Court of second appeal. Interference with concurrent

findings of fact is warranted only if the findings are perverse or

contrary to the evidence on record, which is not the case here.


14.           This Court while exercising powers under Section 397 of

the Cr.P.C. is having very limited scope of jurisdiction, so as to avoid

miscarriage of justice.   The Hon Apex Court in the judgment of

Kuntegowda Vs. Thurubaiah (supra) has observed in paragraph No.7.3

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 passed by the lower court unless :

      i. The order or finding of the lower Courts 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.”
                                                             114.19revn
                                 (12)

15.         In view of the aforesaid guidelines, it is clear that the

scope of this Court while exercising powers under Section 397 of the

Cr.P.C. is very limited. After going through the judgment and orders

passed by the learned Courts below, I found no perversity or illegality

in the said orders. All the aspects of the applicant/accused have been

already considered in proper perspective. There is no any strong or

valid grounds involved in the instant criminal revision application so

as to upset the well reasoned findings given by the learned lower

Courts.


16.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered

opinion that there is no merits in the present Criminal Revision

Application. Consequently, this Criminal Revision Application stands

dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 05/04/2019,

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in

Criminal Appeal No.158/2014, confirming the conviction and sentence

passed by the Trial Court, is hereby upheld.


17.         Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.




                                    [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk