18.02.2026 Item No.8 Ct. No. 34 nb CRR 3546 of 2012 In the matter of: Sri Parimal Chakraborty, ...… petitioner.

Mr. Priyankar Ganguly, Mr. Amaan Deep Gupta, .…For the petitioner.

Ms. Suparna Chatterjee, ….The amicus curie.

1. This revisional application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 31.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 6th Court at Alipore in Criminal Appeal no.44 of 2006 arising out of Judgment and conviction and order of sentence dated July 31, 2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore in connection with the complaint case no.1934 /2000 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that, the petitioner was arraigned an accused in connection with the complaint case registered being registered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore alleging, inter alia that the accused/petitioner received an excess amount of Rs.1,00,984/- in order to pay back the said amount arising out of the transaction and the petitioner had issued an account payee cheque of Rs.1 lac vide no.128546 drawn on Central Bank of India, Jadavpore Branch in favour of complainant/opposite party. The said cheque was placed after one month for encashment on 15.5.2000 to his banker A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank at New Alipore but it was returned on the same day with the Memo of the bank intimating ‘payment stopped’ by the drawer and accordingly it was dishonored.

3. The petitioner deposed as P.W.1 and was also examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. After the demand notice was served and received by the petitioner, the complaint was initiated and accordingly the proceeding was started. The learned Trial Court after hearing of the parties and assessing evidences adduced before the Court passed the order and conviction against the present petitioner and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1, 50,000/- under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the complainant within two months from the date.

4. The petitioner challenged the said judgment and order of conviction before the learned Court and the learned appellate Court also considering the facts and circumstances, affirmed the said order of conviction by delivering the judgment on 31.8.2012. 5. Being aggrieved thereof, this revisional application was filed in the year 2012. The matter was admitted and kept pending since long. However, the interim order as granted at the initial stage was not extended subsequently. On several occasions, an attempt was made to serve notice upon the opposite party no.2. None appeared to represent the respondent. Accordingly, Ms. Suparna Chatterjee was appointed as amicus curie to assist the Court in this case.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that the learned sessions Judge did not apply his judicial mind and decided without appreciating the evidence in its true perspective. It ought to have been considered that both Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act required that the Court “shall presume” giving liberty of the drawer of the cheques for the amount for which the cheques are drawn and it is obligatory on the Court to raise presumption in every case whether the factual basis for raising of the presumption has been established.

7. It is further submitted that the learned Court in order to appreciate the authority shows that even when the cheque was dishonored by reason of stop payment instruction, by virtue of Section 139 it is to be presumed the cheque was issued for in order to discharge the whole or in part, of any debt or number. No such evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant/accused that it was in discharge any legal date or liability however such presumption is rebuttable and the onus shifted upon the accused to rebut the same and this wa