# Surendra Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1220
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1049 of 2026
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54379
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. Despite a series of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court disapproving such
practice of passing orders on printed proforma, it is painful and unfortunate to note that the
appellant in the present case has been summoned by such an order, wherein blanks have been filled
in without applying judicial mind. Such an order has already been held unsustainable by this Court
in the case of Ankit (supra), relying on several decisions of the Apex Court.

11. In view of the above, the conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on
printed proforma by filling up blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and
deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, and
the order must reflect that the Special Judge has applied his mind to the facts as well as the law
applicable thereto.

12. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning
order dated 23rd November, 2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj, is hereby
quashed. The court concerned is directed to pass a fresh, well-reasoned order after applying judicial
mind to the facts of the case.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1220
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1049 of 2026

Surendra Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the petitioner could be convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
for dishonour of cheque when, as per the terms of agreement between the parties, the cheque was to be
encashed only after sanction of loan and transfer of ownership of vehicle, but the said conditions remained
unfulfilled and no legally enforceable debt or liability existed against the petitioner.

Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 251, 313 -
Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption u/s 139 - Rebuttal of presumption
- Tractor with Trolley sale agreement - Conditional cheque - Loan sanction - Transfer of
ownership - Admission of complainant - Accused never borrowed amount from complainant -
Impugned orders - Acquittal - The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 15.12.2025 passed
by Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, whereby his criminal appeal was dismissed and the judgment of
conviction dated 10.09.2025 passed by trial court in Complaint Case No. 1771 of 2021 u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was affirmed - The complainant alleged that an agreement
dated 03.03.2021 was executed between the parties for sale of a Tractor with Trolley for a
consideration of Rs. 3,55,000/- and petitioner issued a cheque for the said amount - It was
4 All. Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1221
agreed that the cheque would be cleared after transfer of ownership of vehicle and sanction of
loan in favour of petitioner - The cheque was subsequently presented and dishonoured due to
insufficient funds, followed by issuance of demand notice and filing of complaint u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act - The petitioner contended that the transaction of sale was
incomplete as the ownership of Tractor was never transferred and the loan was never
sanctioned, therefore, dishonour of cheque could not constitute breach of a legally enforceable
debt - The complainant opposed the revision stating that the cheque belonged to petitioner's
account and the statutory ingredients of the offence were satisfied.

Held: Notably, the complainant in her complaint has specifically averred that on verification from the Bank,
the loan amount not deposited in the account of accused, therefore, she had the knowledge that for lack of
finance facility in favour of accused the cheque would not be cleared - Though despite this knowledge the
complainant presented the cheque, but there is no averment in complaint that before presentation either
accused was informed or he asked the complainant to present the cheque - The complainant in her cross
examination suffered vital admission regarding execution of agreement dated 03.03.2021 and conditions to
get the ownership of vehicle transferred in his name, before en-cashing the cheque of Rs. 3,55,000/- - Further
the complainant also admitted that the accused never borrowed the amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- from her - Most
importantly, the complainant deposed before the trial court that the Tractor is still with her, therefore, it
becomes clear that the transaction of sale of vehicle between the parties failed for variety of reasons and the
presumption attached to cheque that it was issued for discharge of legal liability or enforceable debt stands
sufficiently rebutted - Impugned orders set aside, criminal revision allowed. [Paras 21, 22, 24, 25] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Criminal Revision; s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Agreement was
between complainant and accused; Tractor alongwith Trolley; Breach of agreement; Sale consideration;
Cheque issued by accused; Ownership of vehicle; Sanction of loan; Account for clearance; Verification;
Insufficient funds; Dishonour of cheque; Transaction relating to purchase of tractor; Breach of Contract;
Account holder; Mercantile transactions; Reverse onus upon the accused; Formalities of transfer of ownership;
Condition unfulfilled; Illegality; Impropriety; Acquitted; Revision allowed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision No. - 1049 of 2026

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot in Criminal Appeal
No. 43 of 2025 and also Order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 1771 of 2021.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Revisionist(s):
Dev Prakash Singh

Advs. for the Opposite Party(s):
Gyanendra Kumar Gyani, Sai Girdhar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)
1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Petitioner-Surendra Singh has preferred this Criminal Revision to challenge the judgement
dated 15.12.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2025 by Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot,
whereby his Criminal appeal has been dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 10.09.2025, passed in Complaint Case No. 1771 of 2021 titled Smt. Shanti Devi
versus Surendra Singh under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 has been upheld.

2. The sentence of six months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,32,500/- and
in default of payment of fine, additional three months further imprisonment awarded to the
petitioner-convict by the trial court has also been upheld.

3. Briefly, the facts leading to the revision petition are that the opposite party no. 2complainant filed a Criminal Complaint, bearing no. 1771 of 2021 under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") with the allegations that on 3rd March,
2021 an agreement was reduced in writing between the complainant and accused, in the presence of
the witnesses, whereby a Tractor with Trolley bearing Registration No. U.P. 96 E/0304 was agreed
to be sold to the accused against a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,55,000/-, and in this regard a
cheque bearing no. 003653 drawn at IDBI Bank, Branch- Karwi, City- for an amount of Rs.
3,55,000/- dated 05.03.2021 was issued. At the stage of agreement, the accused stated that after
transfer of ownership of Vehicle in his name from the concerned Department, he would obtain loan
against it and deposit in his account for clearance of the cheque issued in favour of complainant,
but even after a month of the agreement, the accused informed that the loan has not been
sanctioned and as and when it is sanctioned, the cheque can be en-cashed. According to the
complainant the Tractor along with Trolley was given to the accused, and that upon verification
from the Bank, she came to learn that the requisite amount is not credited in the account of the
purchaser, therefore, on the next date, she along with her husband went to the house of the accused,
who refused to either pay the money or return the Tractor. On 28.04.2021, the Cheque presented by
the complainant was returned on 29.04.2021 by the bank with the remarks "insufficient funds" and
thereafter the complainant sent a demand notice dated 19.05.2021 through her Advocate, but
neither any response was sent by the accused nor any payment was made. Therefore, the complaint
under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 13.07.2021 for prosecution of accused.

4. After recording the pre-summoning evidence, the accused was summoned vide order
dated 14.09.2021, and pursuant to the same he appeared and was released on bail. In his statement
under Section 251 Cr.P.C. he denied the accusations and claimed trial.

5. In support of the complaint, the complainant examined herself as P.W.-1, whereas her
husband Shivkaran Prajapati appeared as P.W-2. The complainant also adduced documentary
evidence i.e. the Cheque No. 003653, return memo, demand notice, receipt of Registered Post and
the agreement dated 03.03.2021.

6. After the completion of the evidence of the complainant, the accused in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication, who
explained that the cheque in question was given as a security which was misused. However, no
defence evidence was adduced by the petitioner.
4 All. Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1223
7. Upon considering the evidence on record, the trial court vide judgment dated
10.09.2025, proceeded to convict the accused-petitioner under Section 138 "N.I. Act" and imposed
the sentence as noticed above.

8. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.09.2025, the convict preferred a Criminal Appeal bearing no. 43 of 2025 and the same has also
been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2025. Hence this Criminal Appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the cheque in question was given to
the complainant against the purchase of Tractor Trolley from complainant and the sale price was
fixed as Rs. 3,55,000/- and at that very stage it was clarified that the cheque would be cleared only
after sanctioning of the loan against the said Vehicle after transfer of ownership in the name of the
accused. Learned counsel has further argued that the complaint itself contains an averment that no
loan was given to the accused, and before presenting the Cheque the complainant had verified it
from the Bank also, when she came to learn that the sufficient amount is not available in the
account of the accused. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Cheque could be presented by
the complainant, only if, the accused-purchaser would get the loan, but the same was not
sanctioned as the ownership of the Tractor throughout remained in the name of the complainant.

10. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the vehicle in question is still in possession
of the complainant, therefore, this material admission would establish that the transaction relating
to purchase of Tractor was never complete, therefore, the dishonor of Cheque alone cannot be
construed as breach of contract on the part of the accused, much less a liability of legally
enforceable debt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2025 passed by the
trial court is bad in law, and the appellate court also fell into error of law while dismissing the
petitioner's appeal. He prays that the impugned judgment be set aside and the petitioner be
acquitted in the subject case.

11. The prayer is opposed by Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Gyani, learned counsel for the
complainant who has argued that the entire case of the prosecution/complainant is founded upon
the documentary evidence and the accused has neither disputed his signatures on the cheque nor
questions the cheque which belonged to his account, therefore, in the event of refusing to make the
payment to the complainant despite issuance of demand notice, it becomes clear that the ingredients
to constitute the offence are complete. Thus, the trial court rightly convicted the petitioner. He
submits that the appellate court has also affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 10.09.2025
passed by the trial court and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court
in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

12. Heard Shri Dev Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gyanendra
Kumar Gyani, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

13. Before examining the prosecution evidence on record as well as the merits to test the
correctness and validity of the impugned judgments convicting the petitioner, this Court deems it
appropriate to analyze the statutory provisions relating to the prosecution of an accused for
disonour of cheque punishable under Section 138 "N.I. Act". The said Section reads as under:-
1224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "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: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;

 (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.]"

14. A reading of the above would make it clear, that where the account holder has issued a
cheque for payment to any other person for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or any other
liability, and if the same is dishonoured, the drawer is said to have committed the above offence,
but before presentation of the complaint, three conditions contained in Proviso to Section 138 "N.I.
Act" are required to be fulfilled by the complainant: 1) the cheque, was presented before the Bank
within the validity period; 2) the holder of the cheque makes a demand for payment of said amount
of money by giving a notice in writing within a period of 30 days from the receipt of information
regarding dishonor of cheque from the Bank and the drawer of the cheque fails to make the
payment of money to the holder of the cheque or the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the
statutory notice. Once these conditions are fulfilled, a valid cause of action accrues in favour of
complainant for prosecution of the accused.

15. Further, Section 118 "N.I. Act", contains the special rules of evidence in the nature of
presumptions in respect of negotiable instruments, which also includes a presumption that every
negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, until the contrary is proved. Similarly,
Section 139 "N.I. Act" also lays down a presumption that the holder of the cheque received the
cheque for discharge, whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, unless the contrary is proved.
4 All. Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1225
16. The prosecution of the accused under Section 138 "N.I. Act", is governed by Chapter
XX Code of Criminal Procedure i.e trial of summons case by Magistrate.

17. The legislature in its wisdom has laid down a summary procedure for such trials,
perhaps for this reason a presumption has been attached to the cheque/negotiable instrument in
question that it was issued by accused against a consideration, and further the holder of the cheque
received the cheque, towards discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. The aim of
the "N.I. Act" is to strengthen the mercantile transactions by attaching credibility to
cheque/negotiable instruments, and in order to shorten the trial procedure the complainant is not
required to initially discharge the onus regarding liability of the accused. Thus, it is abundantly
clear that the statute has placed reverse onus upon the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions
attached to the cheque/negotiable instruments.18. Essentially, in a trial under Section 138 "N.I.
Act", the courts are required to ascertain, if, the accused, has successfully shattered the presumption
attached to the cheque in question.

19. Now while reverting back to the facts of the case in hand and considering the respective
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the prosecution of the
petitioner-accused arose from breach of an agreement dated 03.03.2021, whereby the complainant
had agreed to sell her Tractor and Trolley bearing Registration No. U.P. 96E/0304 to the accused
against a sale consideration of Rs. 3,55,000/-, which was given to the complainant through cheque
bearing no. 003653 dated 15.03.2021. A perusal of the complaint would also show that in all
fairness the complainant clearly mentioned in the complaint that the cheque was to be cleared after
sanction of loan in favour of the accused, that too after completion of formalities of transfer of
ownership of vehicle in his favour.

20. During the course of hearing, it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the
complainant that the transfer of the ownership of the Tractor in favour of the accused was never
entered, as it remained in the name of the complainant. Thus, the loan which was to be obtained by
the accused on the basis of transfer of ownership of purchased vehicle was never disbursed, and the
cheque on presentation dishonored for insufficient funds. The cheque is dated 15.03.2021, and as
per agreement between the parties the accused assured that the cheque would be cleared in 13 days
only after the sanction of loan, whereas in essence as per the word and promise of the accused the
cheque was to be presented only after sanctioning the loan, but the said condition remained
unfulfilled.

21. Notably, the complainant in her complaint has specifically averred that on verification
from the Bank the loan amount not deposited in the account of the accused, therefore, she had the
knowledge that for lack of finance facility in favour of accused the cheque would not be cleared.
Though despite this knowledge the complainant presented the cheque, but there is no averment in
the complaint that before presentation either accused was informed or he asked the complainant to
present the cheque.

22. Apart from the above, the complainant in her cross examination suffered vital
admission regarding execution of agreement dated 03.03.2021 as well as the conditions to get the
ownership of vehicle transferred in his name, before en-cashing the cheque of Rs. 3,55,000/-.
1226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Further the complainant also admitted that the accused never borrowed the amount of Rs.
3,55,000/- from her. Most importantly, the complainant deposed before the trial court that the
Tractor is still with her, therefore, it becomes crystal clear that the transaction of sale of vehicle
between the parties failed for variety of reasons and the presumption attached to the cheque in
question that it was issued for discharge of legal liability or enforceable debt stands sufficiently
rebutted.

23. Admission is the best evidence which can be used against a party, and surprisingly, the
trial court notices the vital admissions suffered by the complainant, but still it proceeded to convict
the accused on the ground that the cheque was issued by the accused which belonged to his
account. Further, this Court finds that the appellate court has also failed to exercise the jurisdiction
in a judicious manner, while affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.09.2025 passed by the trial court. The approach adopted by the trial court as well as the
appellate court in convicting the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case is erroneous in
law, and is result of misreading of evidence as well as law on the subject.

24. As a result, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment dated
15.12.2025 passed by the appellate court affirming the judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed by the
trial court suffers from grave illegality and impropriety, therefore, interference is warranted by this
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

25. Resultantly, the revision petition succeeds and the impugned judgment dated
10.09.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 1771 of 2021 as well as order dated 15.12.2025 in
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2025 are set aside and petitioner-Surendra Singh is acquitted in the
Complaint Case No. 1771 of 2021 titled Smt. Shanti Devi versus Surendra Singh.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1226
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5278 of 2025

Juvenile X ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Juvenile Justice Board was justified in invoking s. 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and referring the revisionist for trial as an adult when the medical
opinion assessed his age as "about 16 years" and he had not completed 16 years of age on the date of
alleged offence.

Headnotes