Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
U.B. SAHA, J.
Apan Kumar Das – Accused/Petitioner
Versus
Dilip Kumar Roy – Complainant/Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 7 of 2010
Decided On : 14.7.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. H. Laskar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. A. Bhowmik, Advocate.
The court's decision reaffirmed the legal principle that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a person who issues a cheque that is dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account can be held liable and punished with a fine or imprisonment.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - [Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138] - The court upheld the judgment of the trial court, convicting the accused petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,25,000. The court found that the accused petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 5 lakh, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in his account. The court held that the presumption arising under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted by the accused petitioner, and the complainant respondent had complied with the statutory requirements before lodging the complaint. The court concluded that the trial court did not commit any wrong in passing the judgment, and accordingly dismissed the criminal revision petition.
Fact of the Case:
The accused petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 5 lakh to the complainant respondent, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in his account. The complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the trial court convicted the accused petitioner, sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,25,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and upheld the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the trial court did not commit any wrong in passing the judgment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused petitioner was liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for issuing a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in his account.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption arising under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted by the accused petitioner, and the complainant respondent had complied with the statutory requirements before lodging the complaint. The court concluded that the trial court did not commit any wrong in passing the judgment.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the order staying the operation of the sentence and order passed by the trial court was vacated.
1. The instant revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 9(2) of 2009 where under the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment dated 28.04.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur in C.R. 173 of 2007 wherein the accused petitioner was found guilty and was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,25,000/- out of which Rs. 4,90,000/- will be paid to the complainant respondent and the rest amount of Rs. 35,000/- will be deposited in the treasury by challan, as being consigned to the government exchequer and in default of payment of fine, the accused petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Heard Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the complainant respondent.
3. The case of the respondent, in short, is that the accused petitioner Sri Apan kumar Das was well acquainted with the complainant respondent since long back and he had monetary transaction with the complainant respondent. The accused petitioner, in order to discharge his debts and liabilities towards the complainant respondent issued a cheque bearing no. CD/A 293630 dated 15.12.2006 for an amount of Rs. 5 lakh drawn on Tripura State Co-operative Bank Limited, Hrishyamukh Branch, Belonia, in favour of the respondent complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement full cover not received. After complying with all necessary requirements, the respondent complainant lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. (a) The accused petitioner appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur and contested the case and accordingly, the accused petitioner was examined under Section 251 of the Cr. P.C. stating and explaining the accusation as punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to which the accused petitioner denied the allegation and claimed to be tried and accordingly, trial commenced.
(b) During trial, the respondent complainant examined himself as PW-2 and one Sri Sankar Lal Sarkar, Branch Manager, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Udaipur Branch as PW-1.
(c) The complainant respondent relied upon certain documents including the cheque bearing no. 293630 dated 15.12.2006 issued by the accused petitioner in favour of the respondent complainant, which were marked as Exhibit 1 to 8.
(d) The case of the petitioner, as it reveals from the trend of the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and from the examination of the accused petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. that he took Rs. 10,000/- as loan from the complainant respondent and subsequently he repaid the entire amount and he never took a loan of Rs. 5 lakh from the complainant respondent.
(e) The accused petitioner never has denied nor led any evidence that he did not issue the cheque.
(f) PW-2 (Dilip kumar Roy), the complainant respondent in his deposition stated that the accused petitioner, who is a contractor by profession is known to him and in July, 2006 the accused petitioner borrowed Rs. 5 lakh from him in connection with his brick field business and promised to repay the amount as and when required by the complainant respondent. Subsequently, when the complainant respondent demanded the money, the accused petitioner issued him a cheque of Rs. 5 lakh on 15.12.2006 and thereafter on 15.01.2007 the complainant respondent presented the cheque at Tripura State Co-operative Bank Limited, Udaipur Branch for collection from the account of the accused at State Co-operative Bank, Hrishyamukh Branch. On 05.02.2007, the Branch Manager of Udaipur Branch informed him in writing that th
