The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the legal provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, including the requirement of presenting cheques within the statutory period and issuing a valid legal notice in case of dishonour.

R.B. Misra, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.R. Dutta, learned Counsel for Smt. Rani Saha, petitioner-revisionist. Also heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel for Sri Dipak Kr. Saha, the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned P.P. In charge appearing for the respondent State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred under Section 397(1) Cr. P.C. (and not under Section 401. Cr. P.C.) against the judgment dated 18-2-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 58(4)/05 preferred against the judgment dated 27-9-2005 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter called as ACJM) in CR. No. 3344/2001 affirming the conviction but modifying the sentence to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- (a sum of Rs.65,000/- to be paid to the complainant and rest amount of Rs.5000/- be deposited to the treasury) instead of sentencing the accused/ applicant/petitioner/revisionist by the learned ACJM to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for three months in reference to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act).

3. Since the judgment dated 27-9-2005 of Ld. ACJM already passed in CR 3344/ 2001 has merged with the order dated 18-2-2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, the present revision under Section 397(1) Cr. P.C. is not maintainable against the order dated 27-9-2005. As such, the present revision petition is being heard against the order dated 18-2-2006 only.

4. In order to adjudicate the present revision, it is necessary to give the background of the case that the applicant/accused/revisionist, Smt. Rani Saha has a transport business owning a truck in her name. Out of family friendship, she took a loan of Rs.60,000/- from Mr. Dipak Kumar Saha, the opposite party-respondent and the said amount was to be paid in instalments of Rs.10,000/- for which six post dated cheques bearing No. 077379 dated January, 2001, 077380 dated 28-2-2001, 899042 dated 30-3-2001, 899043 dated 30-4-2001, 899044 dated 30-5-2001 and 899045 dated 30-6-2001 were issued to be drawn on UCO Bank, Agartala payable from the account of Smt. Rani Saha. The above cheques were deposited to the State Bank of India (the bank of Mr. Dipak Kumar Saha, where he maintained his accounts) and these were forwarded to the UCO Bank. It appears that five cheques were dishonoured and returned to Sri Dipak Kumar Saha with remarks of UCO Bank that the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund in her account. However, at the request of Smt. Rani Saha, these cheques were again presented to the State Bank of India for encashment subsequently in the month of July, 2001 but the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, CR. Road Branch, Agartala returned these five cheques on 16-7-2001 mentioning that those cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of the accused/applicant/revisionist (Smt. Rani Saha). Thereafter, Sri Dipak Kumar Saha, the complainant/respondent herein sent a notice (through his Advocate) to the applicant by registered post with A.D. on 19-7-2001 intimating Smt, Rani Saha, about the dishonour of cheques requesting her to pay the amount of the bounced cheques within fifteen days of receipt of notice. The letter/notice was received on 20-7-2001 as reflected from the A.D. card, however, despite receipt of the legal notice, Smt. Rani Saha, did not make any payment, therefore, C.R. case No. 3344 of 2001 was filed on 3-9-2001.

5. It appears that one cheque bearing No. 077379 dated January, 2001, amounting Rs.10,000/- drawn on UCO Bank presented by the complainant was duly honoured and complainant received first instalment and remaining cheques from dated 28-2-2001 to the last cheque (dated 30-6-2001) were submitted by the complainant within six months from the date of issuance of those cheques i. e. within the period of limitation since on 16-7-2