KANU CHANDRA DAS Vs. JOYDEB DEY
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Kanu Chandra Das
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment, dated 21.06.2017 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.62(04) of 2016, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No.CR (NI) 13 of 2015, whereby learned trial Court while holding the petitioner guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I Act hereunder) convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- only with default stipulation.
(2.) Precisely, the facts as emerging from the record are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint under Section 138, NI Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District at Udaipur, alleging therein that he had lent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh) to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the accused) on his request. The entire sum of money was paid to the accused in cash. Accused with a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, issued cheque bearing No.779314 dated 05.03.2015 drawn on United Bank of India, Udaipur Branch in favour of the complainant. The fact remains that on presentation, the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Despite having statutory demand notice, accused failed to repay the said loan within the statutory period. The complainant, therefore, initiated proceedings against him under Section 138, N.I Act, 1881 by means of filing the instant complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Udaipur in Gomati Judicial District.
(3.) On the facts of the case trial Court took cognizance of offence and proceeded with the trial. At the commencement of trial, charge was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty. In the course of trial, complainant examined himself as PW-1, his neighbor Monoj Kr. Roy as PW-2 and his friend Tapan Das as PW-3. All the PWs were cross examined by the counsel of the accused. Apart from adducing the ocular evidence of the PWs, complainant also relied on seven exhibits which are Exbt.1 to Exbt.7. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C who pleaded innocence and stated that he had already repaid the loan. No defence witness was adduced by the accused.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.