Decided on January 03,2020

Prasanta Lenka Appellant
Birendra Nath Rana Respondents


D.DASH,J. - (1.) The petitioner, by filing this revision, has called in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 23.7.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2015 by which the judgment of conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, called the N.I. Act) and the order of sentence as well as the direction for payment of compensation passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jaleswar on 30.11.2015 in I.C.C. No. 34 of 2015 have been confirmed. The opposite party (complainant) had filed the complaint arraigning the petitioner (accused) alleging the commission of offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court having convicted the accused for commission of offence under s ection 138 of the N.I. Act had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay compensation of Rs.6.00 lakh with the default stipulation as to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner (accused) had filed the appeal. The appellate court while confirming the finding of conviction as returned by the trial court has refused to interfere with the order of sentence as also the direction of payment of compensation. Hence, this revision.
(2.) The case of the complainant is that the accused was in need of money to clear up the loans incurred by him for meeting the expenses for construction of house, the educational expenses of his children etc. For the purpose on 18.3.2014 the accused had taken a friendly loan of Rs.5.50 lakh from the complainant. For the sake of evidence, the accused had executed an agreement which had been notarized. By that agreement, accused having acknowledged the receipt of money, had undertaken to refund the said amount without interest within a period of nine months. After expiry of the stipulated period of payment as agreed upon, the complainant requested the accused to pay back the said sum. On 12.1.2015, in order to discharge the debt and liability as aforesaid, the accused issued a cheque of Rs.5.50 lakh bearing no. 320675 dated 12.1.2015 drawn on his account at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Badabazar, Jaleswar Branch in favour of the complainant. He then having presented the cheque with his banker i.e. State Bank of India, Jaleswar for collection of the amount covered under the cheque, the same stood dishonoured for insufficient fund in the account of the accused on which the cheque had been drawn. The complainant thereafter demanded the payment of said amount covered under the cheque in terms of proviso (b) to section 138 of the N.I. Act. There being no response from the side of the accused to the said notice of demand, the complaint ultimately filed the complainant. The plea of the accused is that of denial and false implication.
(3.) Before the trial court, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3. He also proved the cheque (Ext.1), other documents as to the dishonour of the cheque and the demand notice issued by him. The agreement evidencing the transaction has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.11. The accused has examined himself as D.W.1 and two other witnesses in support of his defence. ;

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