The court confirmed that presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act applies, shifting the burden of proof to the accused in a cheque dishonor case, with concurrent findings of fact upheld unless a miscarriage of justice is shown.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The Petitioner, in this CRLREV, assails the judgment dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2017 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2017 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Angul in C.T. Case No.1219 of 2011 has been confirmed sentencing the Petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2/complainant and in default of such payment, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The Opposite Party No.2/ complainant and the Petitioner/ accused were working jointly for PMGSY road work and the contract on the said road work was in the name of the Petitioner Peer Kumar Singh. An amount of Rs.22,50,000/- (twenty-two lakhs fifty thousand only) had been utilised by the complainant for the said work. The Petitioner did not pay back the same to the Opposite Party No.2/complainant even after a village meeting was convened where it was decided that the Petitioner would pay the aforesaid amount by 20.02.11. On 22.02.2011, the Petitioner issued a cheque bearing no.153547 dated 22.02.2011 amounting to Rs.22,50,000/- in favour of Opposite Party No.2/complainant from his account drawn on HDFC Bank, Angul to discharge his liabilities. The Opposite Party No.2/ complainant presented the said cheque to his bank, namely, Neelachaal Gramya Bank, Angul on 22.02.11 for clearance. However, the said cheque was dishonoured and was returned unpaid by Neelachal Gramya Bank for the reason of “insufficient funds” as per memo issued by the Bank on 22.02.2011. The said information was received by the Opposite Party No.2/ complainant on the same day from his banker. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2/ complainant issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act through registered post with A.D. to the correct address to the Petitioner on 10.03.2011 demanding payment of the said amount within 15 days of receipt of the said notice. The Petitioner received the same on 17.03.11. However, he did not make payment even after expiry of stipulated period with an intention to cheat the complainant for which Opposite Party No.2/ complainant approached the learned S.D.J.M., Angul under of N.I. Act which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Angul and numbered as C.T. No.1219 of 2011/ T.R. No.93 of 2017.

3. The learned J.M.F.C., Angul examined the Opposite Party No.2/Complainant C.W-1 and proved Exts.1 to 6. Whereas the Petitioner examined himself as D.W.1. Considering the statement and documents filed by the Opposite Party/ complainant and after hearing of the parties, learned J.M.F.C., Angul passed the judgment of conviction on 22.04.2017 and convicted the Petitioner under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo S.I for one year and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- under 357 (3) of Cr.P.C and in default he shall further undergo S.I for a period of 3 months.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2017 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Angul, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Angul whereby the learned Session Judge, Angul confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court vide its judgment dated 20.03.2019.

5. Hence, the Petitioner is constrained to file this CRLREV challenging the aforesaid judgments a