RINKU DEBNATH Vs. SUMANA SAHA
LAWS(TRIP)-2021-3-55
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on March 31,2021

Rinku Debnath Appellant
VERSUS
Sumana Saha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) This criminal revision petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2017 reversing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.06.2017 delivered in Case No. NI 111 of 2009 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Agartala, the original complainant has preferred this revision petition challenging the order of acquittal of the respondent.
(2.) Heard Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(3.) Facts of the case are as under: Petitioner and respondent used to work as advocate's clerks at Agartala and, as such, they were known to each other. The respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- on 30.10.2007 from the petitioner for purchasing a Maruti car for doing business. While taking the loan, the respondent assured the petitioner that she would repay the loan within six months. The petitioner then borrowed Rs.50,000/- from Sri Swapan Pal (PW-2) and Rs.80,000/- from his friend Sri Sajal Laskar and gave the entire sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as loan to the respondent. Despite lapse of the assured period of six months, the respondent did not repay the loan to the petitioner. As a result of constant persuasion of the petitioner, the respondent ultimately issued a cheque in his name bearing No. MPS/M 028821 dated 22.05.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- drawn on UBI, G.B Hospital extension counter at Agartala against her Savings Bank Account No.1449 towards repayment of the loan. The petitioner presented the said cheque for encashment in UCO Bank, High Court extension branch where he maintained Savings Bank Account No.4485. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of fund in the said account of the respondent and the fact was informed to the petitioner from his bank vide cheque returning memo dated 27.05.2009 (Exbt.3).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.