Court affirmed conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, emphasizing the weight of acknowledgment of loan and the requirement of proving a legal debt despite minor contradictions in witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Kumar, J.

The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.05.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Muzaffarpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2015, upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court in Trial No. 4443 of 2015, corresponding to Complaint No. 2266 of 2013, whereby the learned Magistrate, I^st Class, Muzaffarpur, Shri A.K. Dixit, has found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant, who is opposite party no. 2, Madan Kumar Chaudhary.

2. The factual background of the case is that one Madan Kumar Chaudhary, who is O.P. No. 2 herein, filed Criminal Complaint bearing No. 2266 of 2013 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Muzaffarpur, alleging that cheque bearing no. 079071 dated 20.06.2013 was drawn by the accused/petitioner herein on Bank of India, Muzaffarpur Branch for Rs. 7,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, who is O.P. No. 2 herein. However, on presentation of the cheque by the complainant to his bank, HDFC, Muzaffarpur, the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient fund as per the return memo dated 30.7.2013, sent by the Bank of India to the complainant. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 06.08.2013 was sent to the accused/petitioner herein by the complainant (O.P. No. 2 herein) informing him the dishonour of the cheque and asking for the cheque amount. However, no reply was received from the accused, nor any money was paid to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the criminal complaint on 22.08.2013 and after filing the complaint, the complainant and two other witnesses viz., Chandra Bhushan Mishra and Sunil Kumar Pandey were examined during inquiry under Section 200 Cr.PC and thereafter, cognizance was taken of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and after statement of the particulars of the offence to the accused/petitioner, trial commenced and during the trial, besides the complainant, Chandra Bhushan Mishra and Sunil Kumar Pandey were examined as prosecution witnesses. Original cheque, return memo and legal notice, besides acknowledgment of the accused on stamp paper of Rs. 1,000/- for loan were exhibited during trial.

3. No evidence has been, however, adduced by the accused in his defence, though during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, he has pleaded that he is innocent and evidence adduced by the complainant are false.

4. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the record, learned Magistrate found the petitioner/accused guilty under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him accordingly.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner/convict preferred criminal appeal bearing No. 90 of 2015. However, the said criminal appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- VIII, Muzaffarpur, by the impugned judgment and hence, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/convict.

6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/O.P. No. 2.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She also submits that the complainant/O.P. No.2 has failed to prove his case ag