Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2026Cr.Rev./1622/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against concurrent convictions under section 138 NI Act for a dishonoured Rs.3 lakh cheque. The petitioner contended he signed only as guarantor for his wife's loan. The High Court held he issued the cheque to discharge the loan liability and could not escape payment; the revision was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sanjeev Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:21552

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 1622 of 2016

¶4

---------

¶5

Sanjeev Kumar Singh, son of Sri Indra Narayan Singh, resident of Near Recreation Club Road, Kali Mandir, Jamadoba, Quarter No.IT 25, P.O.Bhaga, Police Station-Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad

¶6

… … Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Premchand Prasad, son of Late Bhola Prasad, resident of Mahabir Nagar, Bhuda, P.O.-Dhanbad, P.S.-Dhansar, District-Dhanbad

¶10

…. Opp. Parties

¶11

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Aman Ali, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Praveen Shankar, Advocate

¶12

---------

¶13

PRESENT

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶15

----------- CAV On 17^th June, 2026 Pronounced on 20/ 07/2026

¶16

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. assisted with learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

¶17

Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge I-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.140 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 17.11.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1^st , Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.1168 of 2011/T.R. No.1249 of 2014 whereby the

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

Cr. Revision No.1622 of 2016

¶20

appellant was held guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and to pay compensation of Rs.4.5 lakhs.

¶21

Factual Matrix:-

¶22

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that one Prem Chand Prasad has instituted the above complaint case against the petitioner stating inter alia that the petitioner has taken friendly loan of Rs.3 lakhs from him in the month of 11.11.2010 for purchasing some land with assurance that he will return the loan amount just after sanction of his departmental loan followed with notary agreement between the complainant and the wife of the petitioner, namely, Rina Singh dated 25.11.2010. The petitioner also issued a cheque No.002027 dated 30.04.2011 drawn of Bank of India, Bhaga Branch, Dhanbad for payment of the said amount. It is further alleged that the said cheque was presented by the complainant in the bank but the same was dishonored due to insufficient fund. Then, the complainant issued a legal notice demanding the cheque amount from drawer of the cheque at his present and permanent address through speed post. But, the petitioner paid no attention to the said legal notice. Thereafter, this complaint case was lodged.

¶23

The accused appeared and contested the case denying the substance of acquisition leveled against him.

¶24

Learned trial court after recording the evidence of the complainant and considering the documentary evidence adduced during trial and after

¶25

Page 2 of 5 Cr. Revision No.1622 of 2016

¶26

2026:JHHC:21552

¶27

hearing the parties held the present petitioner guilty for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him as stated above.

¶28

The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge was also dismissed, which is assailed in this revision.

¶29

Submission on behalf of petitioner:-

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was an agreement about taking of friendly loan and return of the same in between the complainant and wife of the present petitioner. There was no legally enforceable debt or liability against the present petitioner rather he issued a cheque only as a guarantor and as security for payment of the loan amount taken by his wife. Therefore, the presumption under section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act has duly been rebutted by the petitioner and conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is absolutely illegal, perverse and fit to be set aside. Submission on behalf of State and O. P. No.2:-

¶31

On other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted with learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is no legal substance in the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner and no merits in this revision, even if the notary agreement in between the complainant and the wife of the petitioner, Reena Singh, but taking the friendly loan amount is not disputed and issuance of cheque by the petitioner in discharge of liability of loan of his own wife is also not disputed and controverted by the petitioner rather appears to be an admitted fact.

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

Cr. Revision No.1622 of 2016

¶34

2026:JHHC:21552

¶35

Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has discharged his onus to rebut the legal presumption exonerating himself from payment of loan amount of his wife for which he has issued a cheque. As such, there is no valid reason to take a different view by the learned trial court and learned appellate court, which has given concurrent findings about the guilt of the petitioner. Hence, this revision is fit to be dismissed.

¶36

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶37

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the both parties.

¶38

10.It is admitted fact that the petitioner has issued a cheque in order to discharge the liability of friendly loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs in favour of the complainant but the said cheque was dishonored. In spite of giving legal notice and presentation of complaint within stipulated time and after observing of legal formalities, the liability was not discharged. The plea taken by the petitioner that the cheque was issued by him to discharge the loan amount taken by his wife and he himself has owed no responsibility for payment of the loan amount of his wife, therefore, his conviction and sentence is improper and illegal cannot be accepted. It is clear cut case that the petitioner has issued a cheque for discharging the liabilities of loan taken by his wife, which has been dishonored and after all legal formalities, the case was instituted. Therefore, the petitioner

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

Cr. Revision No.1622 of 2016

¶41

2026:JHHC:21552

¶42

cannot escape from the liability from payment of the cheque amount to

¶43

the complainant.

¶44

11.In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in

¶45

this revision, which stands dismissed .

¶46

12.Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

¶47

13.Let a copy of this order along with Lower Court Records be sent back to

¶48

the court concerned through FAX/Email for information and needful.

¶49

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶50

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 20 07/2026 Pappu /- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 22 /07/2026

¶51

Page 5 of 5 Cr. Revision No.1622 of 2016

Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bitu Yadav Alias Bittu Yadav Alias Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raja Bharti @ Raja Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Rana @ Deepak Rana Vs State of Jharkhand

Haru Dhibar And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bal Ram Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Rohini Marandi Vs State of Jharkhand