The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fulfilling the conditions precedent under the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of a cheque to constitute an offence.

Arindam Lodh, J.

1. This is a revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2014 affirming the judgment and order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. N.1.98 of 2012 acquitting respondent No. 2 herein from all the charges brought against him by the revisional petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant-revisional petitioner (hereinafter referred to only as the 'petitioner') had filed a written complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, against the respondent No. 2 for an offence committed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The learned Trial Court registered the case and after examining the petitioner took cognizance of the said case and issued notice upon the respondent No. 2 to appear before the Court. The respondent No. 2 on receipt of the summon appeared before the Court and subsequently he was explained the substance of the accusation under Section 251 of CrPC. The controversy rotates that the petitioner being approached by the respondent No. 2 had paid Rs. 3,60,000/- to the respondent No. 2 in three installments. The respondent No. 2 happened to be the neighbour and very close friend of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not in a position to pay Rs. 3,60,000/- he arranged the money of Rs. 2,60,000/- from his mother-in-law, Smt. Dulu Rani Ghosh (P.W.-2) and Rs. 1,00,000/- from his younger brother, namely Dilip Ghosh (P.W-3). On receipt of the said amount, the respondent No. 2 assured and promised the petitioner to return the said borrowed amount within a period of three months from the date of last payment and for that purpose he issued three post dated cheques on Punjab National Bank in favour of the petitioner on 02.04.2012, 13.04.2012 and 08.05.2012 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,60,000/- respectively. The said three numbers of cheques were submitted by the petitioner in his account at State Bank of India, Agartala Branch, but, the same were dishonoured with the remark 'insufficient funds' in the account of respondent No. 2. The petitioner served statutory demand notice upon the respondent No. 2 on 23.07.2012 through registered post. Having found no response to such demand notice, the petitioner filed the complaint as stated above. The petitioner along with his two witnesses adduced evidence as P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. The respondent No. 2 was examined under Section 313 of CrPC where he pleaded not guilty and stood his witness to define the case as D.W. 1.

3. In course of trial, the learned Court formulated the following questions for determination:-

"1) Whether the cheques vide No. 115348, No. 559794 and No. 115349 were dishonoured when presented for encashment.

2) Whether the payee made a demand for payment of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the accused person within 30 days of dishonor of the three cheques.

3) Whether the accused person received demand notice issued by the payee.

4) Whether the accused person had issued the cheques for discharge of liability or debt, in whole or in part."

4. Having appreciated the evidence and the materials brought on record, the learned Trial Court has held that:-"

i) The complainant has nowhere mentioned the exact date on which he gave the alleged loan of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the accused person.

ii) The complainant did not follow the legal provisions as enshrined in Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, because he did not give any account payee cheque and he did not receive any account payee cheque in connection with the alleged loan money advanced by him.

iii) The complainant did not specify the denomination of the currency notes in the alleged loan transaction.