The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt, which cannot be rebutted by mere denial; furthermore, revisional courts will not interfere with concurrent findings or judicial sentencing modifications absent evidence of perversity or jurisdictional error.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. By this common judgment, it is proposed to dispose of two criminal revision petitions, namely, Criminal Revision Petition No. 439/2019 filed by Ganesh Majumdar as well as Criminal Revision Petition No. 542/2022 filed by Sreekanta Pathak. Same is done as both the criminal revision petitions are directed against a common judgment dated 02.08.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional Session Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 78/2017.

2. Heard Dr. N. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 439/2019 as well as counsel for respondent in Criminal Revision Petition No. 542/2022. Also heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 542/2022 as well as for respondent in Criminal Revision Petition No. 439/2019.

3. Shri Ganesh Majumdar, the petitioner of Criminal Revision Petition No. 439/2019 had filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, against Shri Sreekanta Pathak for dishonor of two numbers of cheques bearing No. 504104 dated 15.11.2008 and 504112 dated 21.11.2008 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) each. The said complaint case was registered C as C.R. Case No. 5927 /2008 and was disposed of by the Court of learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S) No. 2, Kamrup (M), by judgment and order dated 05.04.2017. By the aforesaid judgment, the trial court convicted the petitioner of Criminal Revision Petition No. 542/2022, namely Shri Sreekanta Pathak (herein after referred to as the accused) under of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eighteen months and to pay a compensation amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs) to the petitioner of Criminal Revision Petition No. 439/2019, namely Shri Ganesh Majumdar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). In default of payment of compensation as directed by the trial court, it was stipulated that the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for four months.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial court, the accused Shri Sreekanta Pathak, preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup(M), Guwahati under Section 374 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 78/2017.

5. After hearing learned counsel for both sides and after going through the materials on record, the appellate court disposed of the aforesaid appeal by its judgment dated 02.08.2019, which has been impugned in both the criminal revision by the complainant as well as by the accused person.

6. By the impugned judgment, the appellate court upheld the conviction of the accused as given by the trial court, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. However, it modified the sentence which was imposed on the accused by the trial court. In place of the imprisonment for eighteen months, which was imposed by the trial court, the appellate court modified the sentence of imprisonment into simple imprisonment for three months as it also modified the quantum of compensation payabl