JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :

1. The present revision has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated December 19, 2019 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranaghat, Nadia in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2019 affirming thereby the order of Conviction and partially modifying the Sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Ranaghat in C Case No. 61 of 2012 with a direction upon the appellant/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months only in default of payment of the double of the cheque amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-within 1 (one) month from the date of the order and set aside the substantive sentence.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is a businessman by occupation. On June 19, 2012 the Opposite Party lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner received a sum of Rupees 1,65,000/-from the complainant for constructing a 2 storied building at Gagan Babur Bazar, within the jurisdiction of Taherpur Police Station. The petitioner agreed to deliver the possession of a shop room from the said construction to the opposite party. Subsequently the petitioner gave 2 cheques, one bearing number 784165 dated January 31, 2012 to the tune of Rupees 30,000/-and another cheque bearing number 784168 dated February 29, 2012 to the tune of Rupees 30,000/-both drawn on State Bank of India, Garden Reach Branch.

3. On February 29, 2012 the cheques were deposited by the complainant through his banker UCO bank, Badkulla Branch. The said cheque was returned unpaid by the banker of the Opposite Party/complainant on March 07, 2012.

4. The next cheque being Cheque Number 784168 dated February 29, 2012 was presented for encashment on March 20, 2012. But the said cheque was also returned unpaid on April 04, 2012. Both the cheques were dishonoured for the reason “insufficient funds”. The information was received by the Opposite Party through his banker on April 24, 2012 and within the statutory period on May 10, 2012 the Opposite Party sent a legal notice to the petitioner through registered speed post with Acknowledgement Due Card.

5. The notice sent by the learned lawyer of the Opposite Party to the petitioner was returned on May 28, 2012 with the remarks “Not Claimed”.

6. The cause of action arose on and from May 29, 2012 and the instant case was started.

7. The petitioner was convicted by the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Ranaghat under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rupees 1,20,000/-to the Opposite Party within 1 month from the date of the order i.e. by December 18, 2018 in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months. Sentences to run concurrently.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence dated December 18, 2018 passed by the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Ranaghat, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranaghat, Nadia vide Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2019.

9. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranaghat, Nadia after hearing the appeal, disposed of the Appeal on December 19, 2019, partially affirming, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Ranaghat, Nadia.

10. Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the Learned Courts (Trial and Appellate) failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and convicted the petitioner without applying its Judicial mind and as such the impugned order of conviction and sentence is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

11. The petitioner had no legally enforceable debts towards the Opposite Party and the order of conviction and sentence dese