The Uttarakhand High Court reaffirms that High Courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in Section 138 NI Act cases unless a manifest illegality, perversity, or irregularity is shown, thereby upholding existing precedent and providing binding guidance for future revisions under criminal law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRLR/389/2022 of RAJINDRA SINGH NEGI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010102042022 |
| Date of Registration | 18-07-2022 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms decisions of Trial Court and Appellate Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Scope of High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC in convictions under Section 138 NI Act |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The revisionist, a property dealer, received Rs. 6,40,000/- from respondent no.2 as advance for a land sale. The transaction was not completed, and the revisionist issued a cheque dated 15.06.2017, which was dishonoured. He was convicted under Section 138 NI Act, sentence affirmed by appellate court, and has already served his sentence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be referenced elsewhere for guidance on revisional scope in NI Act matters |
| Follows | Order of Trial Court and Appellate Court in same subject matter |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397/401 CrPC is limited and cannot be used to re-appreciate facts absent a clear error of law, perversity, or irregularity.
- Confirms that once sentence has been served and there is no illegality in convictions under Section 138 NI Act, nothing survives for further adjudication regarding sentence in revision.
- Lawyers should prepare to demonstrate manifest illegality or irregularity if seeking High Court interference in revisional jurisdiction for NI Act convictions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the concurrent factual findings and judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, both of which convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- The Court considered the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, emphasizing it is not meant for re-evaluating evidence or interfering in findings of fact unless gross irregularity, illegality, or perversity is shown.
- The Court found no such errors or irregularity in the findings below.
- Since the sentence awarded was already served and the lower courts’ findings were legally sound, the revision was dismissed.
- The Court held that where no substantial question of law or manifest injustice remains, revisional powers should not be exercised.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Challenged concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act.
Respondent
Submitted that the revisionist had already undergone the sentence. Pointed out bail was granted subject to deposit of the amount as directed by the court. No argument for interference with the merits of the conviction.
Factual Background
The respondent paid Rs. 6,40,000/- as advance consideration to the revisionist, a property dealer, for purchase of a piece of land. With the transaction incomplete, the revisionist issued a cheque dated 15.06.2017 to the respondent, which was dishonoured on presentation. Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated, resulting in the revisionist’s conviction by the Trial Court, affirmed by the Appellate Court. The revisionist subsequently served out the sentence awarded.
Statutory Analysis
The Court interpreted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, affirming its application in cases where a cheque is dishonoured due to non-payment after the underlying transaction falls through. The judgment clarified the limited scope of High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not allow for interference except in cases showing manifest illegality, perversity, or irregularity.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms the existing legal position regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC and application of Section 138 NI Act.