JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Pooja Kumari, learned amicus appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

4. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 03.09.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2013 by learned court of Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereby the appellate court has been pleased to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner dated 23.01.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint C/1 Case No.3444 of 2010 and convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1881) and directed the learned trial court to pass an order of sentence after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

5. The matter was taken up by this Court on 26.11.2020 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 had submitted that pursuant to the appellate order, the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial court and therefore the matter is still pending for passing an order of sentence against the petitioner.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

6. Learned Amicus appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in the judgments passed by both the courts below no finding has been recorded with regards to service of statutory notice regarding bouncing of cheque upon the petitioner, although finding has been recorded with regards to dispatch of legal notice through registered cover. She submits that the petitioner had denied service of notice regarding bouncing of the cheque. She submits that it was for the prosecution to prove service of statutory notice which is a condition precedent for filing a case under section 138 of the aforesaid Act of 1881 and even if deemed service of notice sent under registered cover is taken into consideration, the complaint itself was pre-mature as it was filed prior to expiry of the statutory time line.

The other point involved in the present case is whether the learned appellate court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s judgment of acquittal of the petitioner. She submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court was certainly one of the possible views; there was no illegality or perversity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court calling for interference by the learned appellate court; the appellate court did not record any perversity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. She submits that the manner in which the learned appellate court has exercised the appellate jurisdiction in the matter of setting aside the judgment of acquittal by the learned trial court calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court in order to meet the ends of justice.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite parties

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties have submitted that the impugned judgment of setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is legal and valid in view of the fact that the learned trial court did not appreciate the legal presumption under section 139 of the aforesaid Act of 1881 in connection with the issuance and bouncing of cheque. He submits that the learned appellate court after considering the evidences on record found that the defence failed to establish the genuineness of Exhibit A through which it was claimed that the entire amount has been refunded to the complainant and was of the view that all the requirements to establish a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act were fully satisfied by the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Cr. Appeal No.271 of 2020 with analogo