Inherent Jurisdiction Cannot Circumvent Bar On Second Revision; J&K&L High Court Says 90 Days Reasonable For S.528 BNSS Petitions

The Court further observed that although Section 528 does not prescribe a limitation period, 90 days should be treated as a reasonable time for filing a petition under the provision, and delay beyond that period must be explained.

Dismissing a petition filed by an accused facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court also held that an accused seeking to establish a defence based on land transactions need not examine every person associated with the transactions when the defence can be substantiated through original or certified copies of sale deeds.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the accused was required only to make his defence probable, and the trial court was justified in restricting the list of defence witnesses to those necessary for establishing it.

Background

The case arose from a complaint filed by S. Gagandeep Singh against Bansi Lal Bhardwaj under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in relation to a cheque dated September 20, 2009, for ₹10 lakh, drawn on Jammu Rural Bank, Bohri Patta, Jammu.

After the complainant concluded his evidence, Bhardwaj's statement was recorded on April 20, 2019. He opted to lead defence evidence to establish that he did not owe any money to the complainant.

Bhardwaj claimed that the complainant, a property dealer, had purchased approximately 30 kanals of land from his friends and relatives at ₹1.46 lakh per kanal and subsequently sold it to his clients at ₹2.30 lakh per kanal. He stated that a dispute arose when one of his relatives, Sham Lal, refused to sell his land.

According to Bhardwaj, a settlement was subsequently reached under which the complainant would retrieve the land from his clients and refund the money at ₹3 lakh per kanal. Six cheques were allegedly issued under the settlement, but the complainant later refused to return the land. Bhardwaj maintained that the transactions were relevant to establishing his defence in the cheque dishonour proceedings.

To prove his defence, Bhardwaj submitted a list of 19 witnesses and deposited their diet expenses. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jammu, permitted him to examine the Record Keeper of the Income Tax Department and certain other witnesses but declined to summon the remaining witnesses, observing that the lengthy list appeared intended to prolong the proceedings.

The Magistrate's order was upheld by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, on November 16, 2024. Bhardwaj thereafter approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, contending that restricting his defence evidence would prejudice his right to a fair trial.

Court's Observations

Justice Dhar first examined the maintainability of the petition, noting that Bhardwaj had already challenged the Magistrate's order before the revisional court and was now seeking to challenge the same orders through the High Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Referring to Section 438(3) BNSS, the Court observed that once a person has approached either the High Court or the Sessions Judge by way of revision, a further revision by the same person cannot be entertained.

The Court held that Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court or secure the ends of justice, cannot be used to circumvent a statutory restriction imposed by another provision of the Sanhita.

It observed,

“The petitioner/accused by filing the present petition under section 528 of the BNSS is, in effect, invoking the revisional powers of this Court after having failed in his attempt before the revisional court.”

The Court accordingly held that the petition was not maintainable as it effectively sought a second revision under the guise of invoking inherent powers.

90 Days Is A Reasonable Period To Invoke Section 528 BNSS

The Court also took note of the delay in filing the petition. The revisional court had passed its order on November 16, 2024, whereas Bhardwaj approached the High Court on October 15, 2025, after approximately eleven months.

Although Section 528 BNSS does not prescribe a specific limitation period for filing such petitions, the Court observed that inherent jurisdiction should be invoked within a reasonable time so that criminal proceedings are not disrupted at a belated stage.

Drawing an analogy with the 90-day period available for filing a revision petition, the Court held that the same period should ordinarily be treated as reasonable for a petition under Section 528 BNSS.

The Court observed,

“A revision petition challenging an order can be filed within 90 days from the date of order and on that analogy, a period of 90 days should be treated as a reasonable time to file a petition under section 528 of the BNSS and if it is filed beyond the period of 90 days, the petitioner would have to explain the cause of delay.”

Relying on its earlier decision in Eapen Chakoo v. Union Territory of J&K, the Court held that Bhardwaj had failed to provide any plausible explanation for approaching it after eleven months. The petition was therefore liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches as well.

Sale Deeds Can Establish Defence Without Examining Every Witness

Examining the matter on merits, the High Court considered whether Bhardwaj needed to examine all 19 witnesses to establish the alleged land transactions.

The Court noted that the transactions could be proved by producing the original sale deeds or certified true copies. It emphasised that the burden on an accused to establish a defence is not the same as the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court observed,

“An accused is not required to prove his defense beyond reasonable doubt. He has only to probablise his defense.”

In view of the availability of documentary evidence, the Court held that it was unnecessary to summon the executants of the sale deeds or their marginal witnesses merely to prove the transactions recorded in those documents.

It further observed that there was no necessity to examine the remaining witnesses listed by Bhardwaj and that the trial court was justified in confining the defence evidence to those witnesses considered essential for establishing his defence.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jammu, and those passed by the revisional court.

The Court held that the petition was not maintainable as a second revision in the guise of invoking inherent powers, was filed after an unexplained delay of approximately eleven months, and also lacked merit regarding the restriction on defence witnesses.