In dishonored cheque cases under the N.I. Act, the presumption of debt arises upon dishonor, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption with credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant Revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS is at the behest of the petitioner questioning the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the impugned judgment dated 17^th September, 2024 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2023 by learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, confirming the order of conviction and sentence directed against her in 1CC Case No.117 of 2018 (T.R. No.139 of 2021) vide Annexure-2 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur on the grounds inter alia that the same are legally untenable, hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside.

2. In fact, the opposite party filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner pleading therein that the latter deals with procurement of paddy from others and even from them and at times by instant payment or on credit basis. It has been the claim of the opposite party that on 16^th February, 2018, a substantial amount was generated to be payable to them by petitioner and in order to discharge the said debt, a cheque for an amount of Rs.41,55,000/-(Rupees Forty- One Lakh Fifty-Five Thousand Only) was drawn at DCB Bank Limited, Raghunathpur Branch, Bhubaneswar and upon receipt of the same, it was presented before its banker at ICICI Bank, Jagatsinghpur Branch, Jagatsinghpur on 20^th February, 2018, but, could not be honoured due to insufficient funds. According to the opposite party, after receiving the intimation from the bank, the petitioner was informed about such dishonour of cheque, who assured them to redeposit on 15^th March, 2018 for necessary collection. Once again, it was not honoured for the same reason, whereafter, a demand notice was issued for payment of the cheque amount within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice and it was received by the petitioner on 3^rd April, 2018 through its Managing Director in its Rasulgarh address at Bhubaneswar. In as much as notices were also sent to other addresses, but despite all, no response was received and the cheque amount was not paid within the statutory period and hence, the complaint was filed.

3. In course of trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur received evidence from both the sides. The opposite party examined himself as CW-1 and two witnesses including the Managing Director of the petitioner adduced evidence as DW-1 and DW-2. From the side of the complainant, ten documents were marked as exhibits, but no documentary evidence was received from the side of the petitioner. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concluded that the opposite party successfully proved a case beyond reasonable doubt and found the petitioner guilty for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and directed its Managing Director to undergo a sentence of S.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lakh only) with a default sentence of five months S.I. It was further directed that the fine amount on realization shall be paid to the opposite party as compensation. Being aggrieved of, the petitioner challenged the order of conviction of sentence in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2023. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur confirming the conviction order and sentence directing that the amount deposited by the petitioner i.e. 20% of the fine amount shall be adjusted as against the total fine/compensation. The confirmation of the conviction and sentence has been challenged by the