JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.:

1. This revisional application is a manifestation of displeasure of the petitioner over the judgment and order passed by learned Judge, Bench-I, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2018 affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned 3rd Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta in Case No. C/255/2010.

2. Briefly stated, M/s SSSX Metalicks Private Limited, the opposite party no. 2 herein, filed a petition of complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, alleging, inter alia, that the complainant is a private limited company carrying on business from 51 Vivekananda Road, Kolkata-700007 and is being represented by Balkishan Didwania. Susanta Mondal is carrying on his business from premises no. 33/1 Orphangung Market, Garu Hata, Khidderpore, who placed orders to the complainant company for Basmati rice which was sold, supplied and delivered to the accused person. The complainant raised its invoice bearing no. SSS/F/0003/09-10 and SSS/F/0004/09-10 dated 19th June, 2009 for a sum of Rs. 7,30,000/-and Rs. 3,65,000/-respectively which were duly accepted by the accused person. The accused person in discharge of the aforesaid legal liability issued cheque no. 540397 dated 15th September, 2009 drawn on United Bank of India, Habra for a sum of Rs. 10,95,000/-in favour of the complainant company. The cheque was presented for encashment and was returned by the banker of the accused person with the remark “exceeds arrangement” vide banker’s memo dated 1st February, 2010. The complainant got the said information on 2nd February, 2010, thereafter, the complainant issued a demand notice dated 5th February, 2010 under Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act which was delivered on 10th February, 2010 but the drawee of the cheque failed to act in terms of the said notice. Learned Trial Court after complying with the provision of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued process upon the accused person who in turn surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and stood the trial pleading his innocence.

3. To bring home charges Sri Balkishan Didwania, the authorized representative of the complainant company adduced evidence as P.W. 1 and Susanta Mondal, the accused person adduced evidence as D.W. 1. Nikhil Chandra Roy, Manager of United Bank of India, Habra Branch adduced evidence as D.W. 2, Palash Mukherjee adduced evidence as D.W. 3.

4. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary was pleased to hold the accused person guilty to the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,90,000/-within two months from the date in default to suffer imprisonment for 12 months. The convict made an unsuccessful attempt to reverse the order of conviction by preferring a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2018. Hence this petition under consideration.

5. Mr. Sambhu Nath De, learned Counsel representing the petitioner assails the impugned judgment by adverting inter alia that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. According to Mr. De, the petitioner, who has been suffering an order of conviction, at no point of time gave any order to the opposite party no. 2 to supply rice; rather the opposite party no. 2 brought huge quantity of rice and godowned the same willfully and voluntarily at a market place without the consent of the petitioner. After lapses of three months from the date of alleged delivery of rice the petitioner came to know about the said rice in the said godown at Khidderpore. When the representative of the opposite party no. 2 claimed signed blank cheque from him as security he gave the same with a request not to encash the s