IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLEJUSTICE UDAY KUMAR C.R.R. 3073 of 2022 Samaresh Banerjee @ Sanjay Banerjee - Vs -

Panchu Gopal Sen For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati Ms. Swastika Chowdhury For the Opposite Party : Mr. Navanil De Mr. Subhrajit Dey Hearing concluded on : 23.05.2025 Judgment on : 30.06.2025 UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by Samaresh Banerjee, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, invoking Sections 401/397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It challenges the judgment and order dated June 28, 2022, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Serampore, Hooghly, in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2021. This order affirmed the petitioner's conviction, originally passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Serampore, Hooghly, in Complaint Case No. 118 of 2014 on February 11, 2020. The said conviction involved a fine of Rs.4,30,000/- with a default sentence of six months' simple imprisonment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act).

2. The genesis of this dispute lies in a complaint lodged by Panchu Gopal Sen, (hereinafter referred to as the “complainant”), alleging an interest- free loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- extended to the petitioner. In ostensible discharge of this purported debt, the petitioner is alleged to have issued an account payee cheque (No. 684943) dated January 10, 2014, drawn on his U.C.O Bank account. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured on the very same day with the endorsement "account closed." A demand notice was duly issued on January 20, 2014, and indisputably received by the petitioner around January 27, 2014. As no payment was effected within the statutory period, the complainant initiated the aforementioned criminal proceedings.

3. Subsequently, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Serampore, Hooghly, took cognizance of the offence. The Court recorded the complainant's testimony (P.W.1), afforded the petitioner the opportunity to plead innocence pursuant to Section 251 Cr.P.C., and heard his defence through testimony (D.W.1). Ultimately, the petitioner was convicted on February 11, 2020.

4. Being aggrieved by this conviction, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2021. His defence before the Appellate Court rested on the premise that he had never received a loan of Rs.6 lakhs, contending instead that the transaction involved a mere Rs.20,000/-. He further advanced claims of cheque loss or misuse by the complainant. The Appellate Court, however, upheld the conviction and sentence by dismissing the appeal on June 28, 2022. This concurrent finding of guilt by both courts now forms the bedrock of the present revisional application.

5. Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that both lower courts erred by failing to adequately appreciate the facts and the legal principles governing statutory presumptions. He fervently submitted that the petitioner never borrowed Rs.6,00,000/-, asserting that he had merely secured a modest loan of Rs.20,000/- for his daughter's marriage. A cornerstone of the petitioner's defence, as presented by Mr. Pati, was the assertion that he had lost his cheque book, which the complainant purportedly acquired and illicitly completed for the larger sum, an amount for which the petitioner categorically denied ever issuing the cheque. Learned Counsel argued that this critical factual contention was regrettably overlooked, and its acceptance would fundamentally alter the complexion of the case. The petitioner, it was submitted, even expressed a willingness to repay the Rs.20,000/- if the complainant concurred. The petitioner's defence also included assertions of having signed blank papers and cheques as "security" for an earlier, unspecified transaction, or even that his cheque book was forcibly seized.

6. Mr. Pati vigorousl