IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

CRLLP No.12 of 2021

From the judgment and order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jajpur Road in I.C.C. No.331 of

2013 and the judgment and order dated 08.02.2021 passed by

the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur Road in Criminal Appeal No.03

of 2019.

-----------------------------

Prafulla Kumar Prusty @

Prafulla Chandra Prusty ………

Petitioner

-Versus-

Ramesh Chandra Behera ……… Opp. party

For Petitioner:

- Mr. Trilochan Dash

For Opp. party: - None

----------------------------

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of order: 11.02.2022

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S. K. Sahoo, J.

The petitioner Prafulla Kumar Prusty @ Prafulla

Chandra Prusty is the complainant in a case under section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘N.I. Act’).

The complaint petition was filed before the learned J.M.F.C.,

Jajpur Road vide I.C.C. No.331 of 2013 against the opposite

party Ramesh Chandra Behera who faced trial in the said Court

2

and was found guilty under section 138 of the N.I. Act and

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six

months and was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,44,000/-

(rupees five lakhs forty four thousand only) to the complainant

as compensation under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., in default of

payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for a

further period of one month.

The

opposite

party

Ramesh

Chandra

Behera

preferred an appeal in the Court of Session which was heard by

the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur Road in Criminal Appeal

No.03 of 2019 and the learned Appellate Court vide impugned

judgment and order dated 08.02.2021, allowed the appeal and

set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the

learned trial Court.

This leave petition has been filed by the petitioner

Prafulla Kumar Prusty @ Prafulla Chandra Prusty challenging the

order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court in

Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2019 as per the impugned judgment

and order dated 08.02.2021.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner

and the opposite party belong to same village. The opposite

party had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs)

from the petitioner to purchase a truck with a promise to repay

3

the same within a month. After several demands, the opposite

party issued a cheque bearing no.160643 dated 08.01.2013 in

favour of the petitioner to discharge his liability. The petitioner

presented the said cheque in the Bank for encashment but it

returned back with an endorsement “insufficient funds” on

09.01.2013. A demand notice was issued on behalf of the

petitioner to the accused on 18.01.2013, but neither the A.D.

returned nor any reply came from the opposite party to such

demand notice. The complaint petition was filed on 16.02.2013.

The learned trial Court framed the point for

consideration is whether the opposite party had issued the

cheque bearing no.160643 on 08.01.2013 for due discharge of

his liability and not paid the cheque amount even after receipt of

the demand notice and thereby committed an offence punishable

under section 138 of the N.I. Act.

The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 to prove

his case. The opposite party whose defence plea is one of denial,

examined two witnesses including himself as D.W.1, one

Rajkishore Behera was examined as D.W.2.

From the side of the petitioner, five documents were

marked as exhibits and from the side of the defence, one vehicle

sale