Advocates:
['ARUN KR SINHA', '', 'MRITUNJAY CHAUDHARY', 'LALJEE SAHAY', 'ABUL HASHIM', 'SUNITA KUMARI', 'ABHAY KR TIWARI APP', '', 'SANJAY KR PANDEY']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Revision No. 1167 of 2013

Krishna Kant Kushwaha, S/o Late Moti Mahto

…

…

Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Chedi Thakur, S/o Sitari Thakur …

… Opp. Parties

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through Video Conferencing

---

J U D G M E N T

31/28.01.2021

Heard Ms. Sunita Kumari, the learned amicus curiae

appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned A.P.P.

appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1-State.

3.

The learned trial court vide Judgment dated 11.05.2009

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Civil Court,

Hazaribag in Complaint Case No. 371 of 2009 / Trial No. 929 of

2009 had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and had sentenced him to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and six months and

had directed him to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty

Thousand) to the Complainant as compensation.

4.

The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2009

against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence

passed by the learned trial court in which the learned appellate

court vide Judgment dated 12.09.2013 passed by the learned

Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Hazaribagh upheld the conviction of

the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881 and modified and reduced the substantive sentence to

Simple Imprisonment for one year and directed the petitioner

to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty

2

Thousand) to the Complainant/Opposite Party No.2 and

dismissed the criminal appeal.

5.

The petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision

petition against the Judgment passed by the learned appellate

court whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court

confirmed the Judgment of conviction of the petitioner passed

by the learned trial court with modification of the sentence.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

6.

Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submitted that it has been recorded in the order

dated 14.03.2014 that the petitioner has already served the

sentence. She further submitted that the learned trial court has

wrongly accepted the notice regarding bouncing of cheque to

be validly served and this aspect of the matter has not been

properly considered by the learned appellate court also.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1-State

7.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite

Party No.1–State submitted that there is no illegality or

perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, the

same do not call for any interference. He also submitted that

inspite of repeated opportunities to compromise the case out of

court, no joint compromise petition has been filed and

accordingly, the present case does not call for any interference.

However, he submitted that if any amount has been paid in

furtherance of the so-called compromise, the same may be

adjusted.

Findings of this Court

8.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

going through the judgments passed by the learned courts

below and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds

that on 18.03.2008, the Complainant presented a Complaint

3

before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hazaribag alleging inter-alia that the Complainant had given a

loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner and to return the loan

amount, the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- on

28.01.2008 and when the Complainant presented the cheque for

its encashment, it was dishonoured by the bank due to

insufficient fund. He again presented the Cheque on 30.01.2008

and it was again dishonoured and thereafter, he again

presented the cheque on 19.02.2008 and it was again

dishonoured

due

to

insufficient

fund.

Thereafte