Advocates:
['A K SAHANI', '', 'AJIT KUMAR', 'PRABHU DAYAL AGRAWAL APP', '', 'ROHIT RANJAN SINHA']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 1137 of 2010

Raj Narayan Singh son of Late Kamla Singh, resident of Qtr.

No. 77, Dugdha Coal Washery, P.O. & P.S.- Dugdha, District-

Bokaro

…

…

Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jamuna Singh son of Shri Jagdish Singh, resident of Dugdha,

P.O. & P.S.- Dugdha, District- Bokaro, at present resident of

8 Number Gali, Jai Prakash Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad,

District- Dhanbad

…

… Opp. Parties

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. P.D. Agrawal, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2

: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate

---

06/25.10.2021

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

Heard Mr. P.D. Agrawal, the learned A.P.P. appearing on

behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3.

Heard Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

4.

The present criminal revision petition has been filed

challenging the judgement dated 22.11.2010 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.- III, Dhanbad in

Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2008 whereby the judgement of

conviction and the order of sentence both dated 03.04.2008

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in

C.P. No. 179 of 2003 has been affirmed and the criminal appeal

has been dismissed. The petitioner has been convicted for

offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and

has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a

term of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and in case of

default of payment of fine, the petitioner has been directed to

further undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

2

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

impugned judgement of conviction of the petitioner is ex-facie

perverse in view of the fact that the condition precedent for

filing the complaint case was itself not satisfied. The learned

counsel submitted that in the present case, the legal notice was

sent on 16.01.2003 through registered post and the complaint

case was filed on 11.02.2003. He referred to the complaint

petition as well as the impugned judgement to submit that

there is no averment regarding the fact as to what happened to

the legal notice and even if the legal notice is assumed to be

served upon the accused, then also 30 days from 16.01.2003

would expire only on or about 15.02.2003 and thereafter, 15

days was required to be given to the accused to pay the cheque

amount, but in the instant case the complaint was filed on

11.02.2003 and accordingly, the complaint itself was premature.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the

judgment passed by this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 827 of 2012

decided on 13.07.2021 and referred to Para-24 thereof which, in

turn, has been relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713 (Yogendra Pratap

Singh vs. Savitri Pandey and Another).

7.

The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, while

opposing the prayer, submitted that there are concurrent

findings recorded by the learned courts below convicting the

petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and

therefore, the same may not be interfered with in revisional

jurisdiction. However, during the course of argument, it has not

been disputed that the legal notice was sent on 16.01.2003 and

the complaint case was filed on 11.02.2003. Admittedly, there is

no evidence or averment with regard to service of legal notice

and/or as to what happened to the legal notice.

8.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this

Court finds that altogether three witnesses were examined from

3

the side of the prosecution. Exhibit-1 is the cheque dated

09.09.2002, Exhibit- 2 and 3 are the chequ