HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. A. No.22 of 2024 Sri Subrajyoti Paul Prop-M/S Aromatica S/O Sri Bidhu Bhusan Paul Of East Aralia, Shib Mandir Para, P.S. East Agartala, P.O. Aralia-799004 Agartala, Dist. West Tripura ------ Appellant Versus

1. Sri Bijoy Sarkar S/O Sri Anil Sarkar, Of Laxmipur, Machmara, P.O. Machmara, District- Unakoti, Tripura, Pin-799263 ------ Respondent

2. The State of Tripura ------ Proforma-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P., Mr. Sayantan Talapatra, Adv, Date of hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of delivery of Judgment & Order : 31.10.2025 Whether fit for reporting : YES HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order Leave Granted.

2. This appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is preferred challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.07.2024 delivered by Learned Additional CJM, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case No. N.I. No.122 of 2016. By the said judgment, Learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused under Section

138 of N.I. Act.

3. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the appellant and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Sayantan Talapatra appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused. Further heard Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Rajib Saha appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

4. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court that the present appellant filed one case under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the Learned Trial Court and the respondent-accused appeared before the Learned Trial Court and after conclusion of trial, Learned Trial Court dismissed the case filed by the appellant-complainant and acquitted the respondent- accused from the charge levelled against him under Section 138 of N.I. Act and being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

It was further submitted that the appellant-complainant is running one business for extraction of “Gandhaki Jaributi Oil” under the proprietorship of “M/S Aromatica” located at Machmara Community Common Facility Centre, near Machmara Forest Range, District Unakoti, Tripura and the respondent-accused is also a businessman and in course of business relationship, the appellant- complainant made some advance payment of Rs.70,000/- to the respondent-accused for supplying of “Gandhaki Jaributi”(Wet/Dry) but the respondent-accused failed to supply the same. After that, the appellant approached before the respondent-accused either to supply the products or to refund the amount. Thereafter, the respondent- accused issued a post-dated cheque for an amount of Rs.70,000/-

bearing cheque No.003491 dated 30.03.2016 drawn on Tripura State Cooperative Bank, Machmara Branch in the name of M/S Aromatica in discharge of legal debt and other liability and requested the appellant to present the said cheque to the banker of the complainant i.e. HDFC. Accordingly, on 26.04.2016, the appellant-complainant deposited the said cheque to his banker i.e. HDFC Bank, Math Chowmuhani Branch but the cheque was dishonoured on 27.04.2016 by the Bank with a remark “Funds Insufficient”. The matter was informed to the respondent-accused who also thereafter requested the appellant-complainant to deposit the same again to the Bank stating that after some days money would be available in the said account of the accused and with that belief on 25.05.2016 after due intimation to the respondent-accused, the appellant again deposited the said cheque for collection of money to his banker namely HDFC Bank, Math Chowmuhani Branch but unfortunately the said cheque was again dishonoured on 26.05.2016 with the same remarks “Funds Insufficient”. The appellant thereafter informed the matter to the respondent-accused but he did not make any payment. After that, on 02.06.2015, the appellant-complainant sent a demand notice to the respondent-accused to his address with a request to pay