- (1.) The challenge in this revisional application is to the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly on 15.5.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2004 whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly, on 23.12.2003 in Criminal Case No. 405 of 2000 was affirmed.
(2.) The factual background of this revisional application is stated in brief below: Smt. Sima Sarkar, wife of Debasish Sarkar provided Swapan Roy (hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioner") with a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 26th May, 2000. The Petitioner happens to be a close relation of Sima Sarkar (hereinafter referred to as "the O.P. No. 1). The O.P. No. l was having a bank account jointly with her husband, Debasish Sarkar. She paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Petitioner as loan. The Petitioner, on his turn had issued a cheque, being No. 408869 dated 26.5.2000 drawn on State Bank of India, Picnic Garden Branch of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards payment of the loan. It was a post-dated cheque. The cheque was deposited with the bank of the O.P. No. l, U.T.I. Ltd., Konnagar Branch, on 2.8.2000. The cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid on 3.8.2000 by the said bank with an endorsement "insufficient fund". The O.P. No. l sent one demand notice dated 9.8.2000 through her advocate and posted the same on 14.8.2000 in the official as well as in the residential address of the Petitioner by registered post as well as under certificate of posting. Service of notices were returned with endorsement of the postal authorities "refused" on 16.8.2000 and "not claimed" dated 17.8.2000 at both the addresses. Accordingly, the O.P. No. l lodged a complaint on 15.9.2000 against the Petitioner in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly, praying for prosecuting him for committing of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(3.) After taking cognizance of the offence, the trial commenced. In course of trial, the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded evidence of as many as five witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant (Respondent No. l herein) and four witnesses on behalf of the Petitioner. Some documents including the cheque in question, copies of notice, postal envelopes containing the notice of complaint as well as endorsement of the postal departments and the bank account statement were admitted into evidence and marked Exhibits on behalf of both the parties.;