Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.04.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of

the operative part of the judgment? : NA

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the sole respondent/ complainant.

2. The instant criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely Dr. Reema Bodo, invoking the provisions of Section 528 B.N.S.S., aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2025, which was filed against the said impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court in a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881).

3. By the said order, apart from admitting the appeal, the trial Court sentence was stayed, subject to the payment of 20% of the fine amount by the petitioner within a period of 60 days, in terms of Section 148 of the Act.

4. Before proceeding further, the brief facts may be noted. The sole respondent as complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the court of the learned C.J.M. Barpeta, alleging dishonor of cheque issued by the petitioner. The case was registered as N.I. Case No. 72 of 2018, which proceeded to the stage of trial during which the petitioner, the complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and the petitioner and his wife examined themselves as D.W-1, D.W-2 and D.W-3 respectively.

5. The respondent/complainant is stated to have developed friendship with the petitioner and her husband, and in course of the same, they sought a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from the complainant, which he gave to the petitioner in view of their friendly relation. Subsequently, towards repayment of the same, on 26.08.2018, the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 10 lakhs via cheque No. 314679 drawn at her State Bank of India account at Gauhati Medical College, Bhangagarh branch.

6. However, upon presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured on 29.08.2018, due to drawers’ signature mismatch. It was the further case of the complainant before the Learned Trial Court that subsequently on 12.09.2018, he sent a legal notice to the accused demanding repayment within 15 days and that the notice was sent by registered post and received by the accused on 17.09.2018. It was stated by the complainant that as the accused failed to pay the amount, he initiated the proceeding before the Learned Trial Court under Section 138 of the NI Act.

7. After completion of trial, the Court of the learned Additional C.J.M. Barpeta, vide judgment and order dated 22.04.2025, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs (in default to undergo S.I for 3 months).

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Trial Court, the petitioner as appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions C.J.M. Barpeta, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2025 and posted before the learned Additional C.J.M. Barpeta for disposal.

9. Vide order dated 20.05.2025, the appeal was admitted for hearing. However, on the prayer of the respondent/complainant, the impugned order of sentence was stayed, subject to the petitioner/ appellant depositing an amount equivalent to 20% of the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court, in terms of Section 148 of the N.I. Act and the said amount was directed to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of the order.

10. In support of his prayer for interference with the said order directing deposit of 50% of the fine amount, Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no statutory notice as required by law was sent to the other side and that any such notice was not sent to the proper address of the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that the cheques were stolen by the brother