SEEMA CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)- An application under section 401 read with section 482, cr. P. C. is the subject matter of the present revisional application in which an order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. C-1135 of 1991 on 29. 3. 95 has been sought to be set aside.
(2.)THE case of the petitioner is that complainant opposite party No. 2 filed the case being C-1135 of 1991 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta of an alleged offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Allegation contained in the compliant in short is that a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- was issued by the present petitioner drawn on Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation on 10th of december, 1990 in favour of the complainant and the cheque was dishonoured on presentation on 21st of May, 1991. As the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges when the case was being tried before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court to whom the case was earlier transferred by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for trial, witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant as also the Defence, that is the present petition.
(3.)IN course of evidence, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 stated that the petitioner signed the cheque in their presence at the premises of P. W. 1. It was the defence of the petitioner that she did not know the complainant and she did not issue any cheque in his favour. Direct and positive suggestions were given to both the witnesses that the petitioner never went to the residence of P. W. 1 or put her signature on the cheque in course of cross-examination. During examination, under section 313, Cr. P. C. , the petitioner reiterated that she did not know the complainant did not put her signature on any cheque and also did not issue any cheque in his favour. The Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta did not think it necessary to get the disputed cheque examined by hand-writing expert but on the basis of the evidence on record, he found the present petitioner guilty for offence under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act and referred to the case of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under section 325, Cr. P. C. since he was unable to pass appropriate sentence which was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.