JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short ‘CrPC’), challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2011 (Kausik Barui Vs. Kartick Chandra Basu & Anr.).

2. By the said Judgment and Order, the Learned Judge affirmed the judgment and order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Alipore in Case No. C-6282 of 2006 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short ‘N.I. Act’) whereby and whereunder the petitioner herein was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 7,95,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. The compensation amount shall be paid by the convict within 30 days from the date of the judgment, in default, he shall be sentenced to further S.I. for two months.

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. The opposite party no. 1/complainant averred that the accused person approached him for an accommodation loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- and the accused person was given accommodation loan as per request. To discharge the liability, the accused persons issued an account payee cheque of Rs. 6,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The cheque was dishonoured when it was presented to the bank with the endorsement “Insufficient Funds”.

b. Thereafter, the complainant sent a demand notice asking the accused persons to make payment of the aforesaid loan amount. However, the accused persons paid no heed.

c. The opposite party no. 1 filed a complaint against the accused persons for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Summonses were issued against the accused persons.

d. The accused persons appeared before the Court below and were released on bail. Though the contention of the petitioner is that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case as he did not avail any loan from the complainant.

e. To substantiate the allegation made in the complaint, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has brought on record documents which are marked as Exhibits 1 to 4. On the closure of complainant’s evidence, the accused person was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein he pleaded innocent and denied all allegations made in the complaint.

f. Upon conclusion of the trial and after hearing both sides, the learned Trial Court, by its order dated 29.01.2011, convicted the petitioner under section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him as aforesaid and acquitted another accused person.

g. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the learned District & Sessions Judge at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South), the same was registered being Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2011. It was subsequently transferred to the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) for hearing and its disposal.

h. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal on contest and affirmed the judgment and order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, this revisional application.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the complainant miserably failed to prove the case in positive terms against the petitioner. No agreement or written document was produced to show an accommodation loan was taken by the petitioner from the complainant. In fact, no such liability was up