Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act affirmed, emphasizing the necessity of due process in criminal trials and the validity of a Magistrate's authority.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short Cr.P.C.), praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd court, Paschim Medinipur in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2015.

2. By the said Judgment and order, the Learned Judge affirmed the judgement and order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Paschim Medinipur in C.R. Case No. 604/2012 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (In short N.I. Act) whereby and whereunder the petitioner herein was convicted for an offence punishable under of the NI Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of three months and pay a fine of Rs. 5,25,000/- out of which Rs. 5,00,000/= shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. In default of payment of the fine amount, Rs. 25,000/-, the petitioner will undergo a further imprisonment of one-fourth of the simple imprisonment.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Brief facts of the present case in hand, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case are as follows:

a. It was the specific allegation of the complainant that the present petitioner was his friend and, due to an urgent need for money for his business, requested him to lend to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as a temporary loan for his business, with an undertaking to repay the same within the first week of June, 2012. He had handed over a post-dated cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 10.06.2012, a Sale deed, and an insurance policy paper to the complainant. However, when the said cheque was presented to the bank, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

b. The complainant filed a case under section 138 of the N.I. Act when the Petitioner failed to repay the aforesaid amount, and finally the case was disposed of by the Trial court after conclusion of trial, wherein the Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as aforesaid.

c. The contention of the present petitioner, whereas, is completely different. Actually, the petitioner was in dire need of money for his business. Consequently, he approached the complainant, who is also a businessman, and had very good relations with several banks. He assured the Petitioner that he would arrange for a loan from one of the banks.

d. Upon such assurance and good faith, the petitioner had handed over a blank cheque, a deed of an immovable property, mutation certificate, the record of rights, and LIC policy papers as mortgage to secure a loan from the bank, but the complainant misused the same after betraying the trust of the petitioner.

e. The Learned Trial court did not follow the proper procedure while disposing of the proceeding, and convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, whimsically and capriciously, and further sentenced him, even though the case of the petitioner was different.

f. The Trial court has also not properly examined the petitioner under section 313 of the CrPC. No opportunity of cross-examination of the P.W.2 was allowed by the successor Magistrate despite the indication that P.W.2 was never cross-examined. Therefore, the Petitioner has lost his valuable right to cross-examine the witness on the factual aspect and finally suffered conviction without any fault.

g. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the Trial court, the petitioner preferred an a