- (1.) The legality, validity and propriety of a concurrent finding of fact has been challenged in this revisional application, mainly, on the following two-fold grounds:-- (a) That in view of explanation to section 138 of the N.I. Act, 'debt or other liability', for the purpose of section 138 of the N.I. Act, should be a legally enforceable debt or liability, which is not in the case in hand because the alleged debt was a time barred one; (b) That the criminal action was initiated by the opposite party against the petitioner under section 138 of the N.I. Act in violation of mandatory provisions of section 142(b) of the Act. The opposite party No. 1 Ram Gopal Sharma lodged a complaint being No. C/226/02 against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 15.02.2002 alleging therein that a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- drawn by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party in discharge of monetary liability arose out of business transaction between them. The cheque was dishonoured on presentation by the banker of the opposite party No. 1 for insufficiency of fund in the account. The information was received by the opposite party No. 1 from the bank on 10.01.2002, Without delay, on 17.01.02, the opposite party No. 1 sent a demand notice to the petitioner which he received on 04.02.2002. The petitioner failed to pay the money as demanded through notice by the opposite party No. 1 within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The opposite party No. 1 filed the complaint in the Court against the petitioner on 15.02.2002.
(2.) The learned Trial Court upon consideration of evidence on record, oral and documentary, found the petitioner guilty of offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. It was also directed that the amount of fine to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The order was appealed against and the Criminal Appeal being No. 58/09 was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court whereby the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was affirmed.
(3.) That the petitioner has come up with this revisional application against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Court on the above-mentioned ground's.;