SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands on 30th June, 2014 in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2013.
(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment had affirmed an earlier judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Port Blair in CR No.38 of 2011 on 10th June, 2013. The petitioner had been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.18,50,000/ -, out of which Rs.50,000/ - was payable to the State and the balance was ordered to be delivered to the original complainant in whose favour the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs.10,00,000/ - drawn on the Syndicate Bank, which was subsequently dishonoured allegedly on account of 'insufficiency of funds ''. Both, the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that issuance of the concerned cheque, the fact of its being dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds after its valid presentation within the stipulated period, and the subsequent failure of the petitioner/accused to make the requisite payment in compliance of the statutory legal notice sent to him on behalf of the complainant, were satisfactorily proved on account of which he was convicted and awarded punishment in accordance with law. In this revisional application, however, he has challenged his conviction by inter alia emphasizing the following grounds: - (i. That the learned Courts below erred in taking a view that the cheque purportedly issued was in discharge of some ''legal debt or liability '' despite his claim that it was actually issued only as a matter of ''Security '' for ensuring that the agreement between complainant and his own father for sale of some landed property would be honoured; (ii. That the learned Courts below erred in holding that the cheque in question was dishonoured by the Bank on which it was drawn, although this fact was not satisfactorily proved by the complainant; and, (iii. That the demand notice allegedly issued on behalf of the complainant was not specific, on account of which the complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act ought to have been dismissed.
(3.) ON going through the impugned judgement and the Annexure P -1 being the original complaint, it becomes clear that the petitioner 's father had originally entered into an agreement for sale of landed property in favour of the complainant within a period of six months. An amount of Rs.10,00,000/ - was paid as consideration by way of a cheque which was subsequently enchased. But, the property was not transferred. All along the petitioner himself had been instrumental in making the deal between his father and the complainant, but had consciously refrained from entering into the transaction himself on account of being a Government servant. When the agreement was not honoured by the petitioner 's father, after much persuasion the petitioner agreed to refund the amount of Rs.10,00,000/ - which he did, by the impugned cheque which was subsequently dishonoured.;