The court held that a revision petition directly filed in the High Court after conviction bypassing the appeal process is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner herein, under Section 397 Cr.P.C ., being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong in C.R. Case No. 1741(S) of 2013.

2. The brief background of the case is that the petitioner has obtained a loan from the respondent for an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only by deposit of her land documents in respect of her landed property situated at New Colony, Laitumkhrah, Shillong. Thereafter, the petitioner has repaid ₹ 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only in two instalments of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only and ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only respectively. Then for repayment of the remaining amount, she has handed over a blank cheque to the respondent.

3. The respondent then entered an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only in the cheque and proceeded to encash the same, but due to insufficiency of fund, the same was dishonoured. The respondent caused issue of a notice upon the petitioner who replied by stating that the amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only is not correct as ₹ 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only was returned and only ₹ 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only remained as balance and if interest is calculated thereon, the total amount will come to ₹ 7,33,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs thirty three thousand) only. However, the respondent went to the bank to re-encash the said cheque of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only but by that time, the petitioner has instructed the Bank to stop payment.

4. The respondent has then taken recourse to the provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by filing a complaint before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Shillong for an alleged dishonour of a cheque for ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only drawn by the petitioner and which case was registered, initially as C.R. Case No. 1381(C) of 2011 but later renumbered as C.R. Case No. 1741(S) of 2013.

5. The learned Trial Court after conclusion of the trial had convicted the petitioner and had imposed a fine of ₹ 13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs) only. Hence this petition.

6. Mr. P.K. Borah learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on receipt of the notice from the court, the petitioner entered appearance on 22.02.2012. On that date, the particulars of the offence of which the petitioner was accused of was not stated to her. This, according to the learned counsel is the procedural flaw committed by the Trial Court and as such, the proceedings stands vitiated on this ground alone.

7. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in course of proceedings, the petitioner has filed the evidence of her witnesses by way of affidavit. However, these defence witnesses were never cross-examined by the complainant/respondent and eventually, on 06.10.2015, on the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent, the cross-examination of the defence’s witnesses was closed. This has led to the non-consideration or rejection of the evidence of the defence’s witnesses by the learned Trial Court which is reflected in the contents of the impugned judgment and which rejection has affected the merits of the petitioner’s case before the said court.

8. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Trial Court has noticed that since a summons trial was adopted by the Court, notice to the accused person under Section 251 Cr.P.C . has not been issued which is m