JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 3.2.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2012; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 9.10.2012, passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Jamshedpur, in C/1 Case No. 1757 of 2009; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs to the complainant by way of compensation; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. The prosecution case in short is that a complaint case was filed by Opposite Party No. 2 on 01.07.2009 mainly stating therein that the parties are known to each other and out of acquaintance, in order to help the petitioner in his business, Opposite Party No. 2 had given Rs. 7,20,000/- during the period March, 2007 till July, 2007 through several account payee cheques from time to time as well as cash also and the account payee cheques were encashed by the accused/petitioner and accordingly the petitioner received Rs. 7,20,000/-. It has been further stated that the petitioner undertook to repay the said amount within two years from the date of receipt and in lieu thereof had issued post-dated account payee cheque bearing No. 891585 dated 27.12.2008 drawn upon Canara bank, Mango Branch, Jamshedpur. As the accused did not pay the said amount within two years, the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) firstly presented the cheque on 27.12.2008 in Bank but the same was dishonoured and later on, on the assurance of the petitioner, he claimed to have re-presented the cheque on 18.05.2009, but the same was dishonoured and a Cheque Return Memo dated 19.05.2009 was issued intimating Opposite Party No. 2 regarding the dishonor of the said cheque bearing No. 891585 due to insufficient fund. The complainant claims to have thereafter given a notice to the petitioner on 10.06.2009 requesting the petitioner to make payment of the aforesaid amounting of Rs. 7,20,000/- to the complainant within 15 days, but despite service of notice the accused did not repay the amount, rather submitted a reply through his lawyer on 19.06.2009 wherein it has been alleged that complainant never paid the sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- to the petitioner but the said cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of complainant as a security for investment in real estate business with the complainant which did not materialize and the complainant did not return the said cheque saying that the same was misplaced and now the complainant wants to utilize the said cheque in illegal manner and the petitioner disowned to have received any amount as claimed in the legal notice. Accordingly, the complaint was filed.

4. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini submit that a serious doubt is casted on the claim of the complainant that the cheque was issued in discharge of outstanding debt and liability as the complainant though in the complaint petition claimed to have advanced loan to the petitioner through account-payee cheques and cash, but in his deposition he admitted that not a single farthing was paid through account-payee cheque rather he claimed to have made the payments through cash and self-drawing cheques which falsifies his entire case.

Mr. Das further submits that this is a case where the complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands and despite even admitting his mistake in mentioning the cheque number in the complaint did not wait for the Court’s order and at his own risk tampered with the Court’s papers which included the tampering of the cheque number even in the legal notice filed by him along with the complaint petition. This fact goes to the root of the matter and when a finding has been recorded that