PRADEEP KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.1.2009 passed by Mr. Surya Bhushan Ojha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class and Jamshedpur in Cl. 428 of 2006 (T.R. No. 278 of 2009), by which judgment the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a compensation to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10 lakh within one month. The said judgment was confirmed by the District and Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by the order dated 30.3.2009 in Cr. Appeal No. 23 of 2009. after considering the evidences of both the parties on record, found the appellant guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and confirmed the same. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts wrongly found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since, as per the provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, liabilities created or occurred in past or in future are covered. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case liability was to occur in future and the cheques were given as a security for future debt, and as such. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not applicable.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2006 Cr.L.J. 2643 in the case of Laxminivas Agarwal. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that although this point of law was not argued in the Trial Court, but, since point of law can be raised at any stage, hence the finding is bad in law and fit to be set aside. He has also relied on the decision reported in 2006 Cr. L.J. 4812 in the case of M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Ltd. for the same.;