IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment highlights the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in cases involving the dishonoring of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the Judgment and Order dated 29th July, 2019 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – IV, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2018 (Re. Sri Subir Bhattacharjee Vs. Sri Kamal Ghosh and the State of West Bengal) arising out of Complaint Case No. 253 of 2013 (Re. Kamal Ghosh Vs. Subir Bhattacharjee) whereby allowing the Appeal on contest, without any order as to cost by setting aside the conviction and sentence given by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas on 30th December, 2017 in Complaint Case No. 253 of 2013 (TR Case No. 359/2013)(Re. Kamal Ghosh Vs. Subir Bhattacharjee) and further directing the convict/Appellant to set at liberty and also discharged him from his bail bonds and also vacating the stay, if any, in the said Appeal.

2. The petitioner and opposite party No. 2 herein were known and/or acquainted with each other, and out of faith and trust the Petitioner on 10th December, 2009 gave to the Opposite Party No. 2, on his demand an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- only, and a written agreement to that effect embodying the facts and circumstances was duly executed by and between them in presence of two attesting witnesses, and the said instrument was duly notarized on the same day before Learned Kashinath Karmakar, Notary, Government of West Bengal, having Registration No. 15/2002.

3. The petitioner states that it was agreed in the said agreement dated 10th December, 2009 that the entire amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- only would be refunded within one month from the date of entering into such agreement.

4. The petitioner states that even after expiry of the period of one month as agreed, the Opposite Party No. 2 herein failed to refund the said amount and on repeated requests of the petitioner herein, the Opposite Party No.2 issued one Account payee cheque in favour of the Petitioner bearing cheque No. 242559 dated 30th March, 2013 of UTI Bank Limited, Nabapally, Sangam Market, Colony More, Barasat, Kolkata - 700 126 branch, to the tune of Rs. 3,75,000/- only.

5. The petitioner duly presented the Cheque bearing No. 242559 dated 30th March, 2013 for encashment with his Bank Syndicate Bank, Barrackpore Branch, but the said Cheque was returned by the bank on 2nd April, 2013 with an endorsement “Account Closed” vide a cheque returning Memo.

6. The petitioner issued a demand notice through the learned Advocate on 29th April, 2013 inter alia stating all the facts and called upon the accused/opposite party no. 2 to pay the sum of Rs. 3,75.000/- only in lieu of said dishonored cheque within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of said notice and the said notice was dispatched through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. That an intimation of said notice was served by the postal Authorities on 30th April, 2013 and subsequently returned to the addressee of the same with a postal remarks “Not Claimed” on 7th May, 2013.

7. The petitioner upon compelling circumstances filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas on 22nd May, 2013 and the said complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 253/2013 (Re. Kamal Ghosh Vs. Subir Bhattacharjee).

8. The petitioner as complainant in the Complaint Case No. 253/2013 (Re. Kamal Ghosh Vs. Subir Bhattacharjee) adduced evidence as PW-1 by filing evidence in chief and submitted documents which were marked as exhibits as follows:-

9. After careful consideration of all the documents so produced, evaluating the evidence and considering th