Procedural irregularities in trials under the Negotiable Instruments Act do not invalidate judgments unless they cause prejudice to the parties involved; trial integrity must prioritize substantive justice.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, through the present CRLREV, challenges the judgment dated 07.12.2019 rendered by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher, in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2017. By the said judgment, the Appellate Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2017 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Talcher, in ICC Case No. 200 of 2014/Trial No. 196 of 2015. The S.D.J.M. had convicted the Opposite Party under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act/ 1881 (“NI Act”) sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and directing him to pay compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) to the Petitioner/Complainant.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this CRLREV are as follows:-

(i) The Accused/Opposite Party, a close associate of the Complainant/Petitioner/ frequently visited the Petitioner’s residence and subsequently proposed to borrow money from the Petitioner. Over time, the Opposite Party borrowed a cumulative sum of Rs. 14,90,000/- from the Petitioner, which was acknowledged by the Opposite Party in a notebook retained by him until 16.10.2014.

(ii) Upon the Petitioner’s demand for repayment/ both parties convened on 16.10.2014. On this occasion, the Opposite Party issued a cheque bearing No. 097229 dated 16.10.2014, drawn on the State Bank of India, Telisingha Branch, against Firm Account No. 304221640316, in acknowledgment of the outstanding debt and legal liability. Alongside the cheque, the Opposite Party also executed a promissory note affirming the amount due.

(iii) When the Petitioner presented the cheque for encashment, it was dishonored by the bank with the endorsement “funds insufficient.” Following this, the Petitioner issued a registered legal notice to the Opposite Party on 28.10.2014, which was duly served. The Opposite Party responded to the notice on 11.11.2014. Despite the notice, the Opposite Party failed to repay the amount within the statutory period, resulting in the cause of action arising on 15.11.2014. Consequently, the Complainant initiated the present case.

(iv) The plea of defence was one of the complete denial.

(v) In order to substantiate the allegations, the Petitioner/complainant examined himself as P.W.I. He examined Kailash Chandra Nayak and Udayabhanu Rout as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The cheque in question is marked as Ext.l, the deposit slip is marked as Ext.2, the cheque return memo is marked as Ext.3, the demand notice is marked as Ext.4, postal receipt is marked as Ext.5, the reply of the Opposite Party/accused to demand notice is marked as Ext.6, the registered envelope is marked as Ext.7 wherein the Petitioner/complainant received the Ext.6, the promissory note is marked as Ext.8.

(vi) The Opposite Party/accused examined himself as D.W.1. He also examined Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra as D.W.2 and the Deputy Manager of S.B.I., Telisingha as D.W.3. He has exhibited his bank statements as Ext.A series, some medical documents of Aswini Hospital, Cuttack as Ext.B series and the certified copy of I.C.C. Case No.163/2014 as Ext.C series. He also exhibited the statement of account of the complainant as Ext.D series.

(vii) Upon evaluation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court concluded that the Complainant successfully proved his case against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Opposite Party/Acc