Advocates:
['PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO', '', 'U C DORA', 'G R DAS', 'S K DAS', 'B MOHANTY', 'M/S MANOJ KUMAR MOHAPATRA C B MOHAPATRA']

Page 1 of 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No. 337 of 2022

Narayan Prasad Mohanty

&.

Petitioner

Mr. U.C. Dora, Advocate

-Versus -

State Bank of India, Charampa

Branch, Bhadrak & Another

&.

Opposite Parties

Mr. P. Tripathy,

Additional Standing Counsel

Mr. M.K. Mohapatra-1,

Advocate for Opposite Party No.1

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_

08.12.2022

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2.

The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section-

138 of the N.I. Act by judgment dated 14.08.2012 passed by the

learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak in 1.C.C. Case No. 195

of 2009 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and

pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the

complainant within a month failing which interest @ 10% p.a. will

be charged till payment is made.

3.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a lonee of the

respondent 3Bank having availed a personal loan of Rs.98,000/-

(Rupees Ninety-eight Thousand ) on 20.02.2007. On 13.02.2009, he

issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.41,522/-(Rupees Forty One

Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Two ) in favour of the complainant

Bank but the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds in his

bank account. After issuing legal notice when the petitioner failed to

pay, the Bank filed the aforementioned complaint in the Court.

Order No.

06.

Page 2 of 2

4.

On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the

Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as aforesaid.

The matter was carried in appeal to the Court of Sessions. Learned

Sessions judge, by judgment dated 16.03.2022 after referring to the

evidence on record and the settled position of law found no reason

to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence of the

Trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

5.

The said judgment is impugned in the present Revision.

6.

Heard Mr. U.C. Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. M.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Bank.

7.

It is submitted by both Mr. Dora as well as Mr. Mohapatra

that the matter was settled in Lok Adalat held on 28.07.2016 by way

of compromise settlement and accordingly the Bank issued a closure

certificate on 24.06.2022. A copy of the said closure certificate has

been enclosed to the Revision Petition.

8.

It is submitted by Mr. Dora that the above fact could not be

brought to the notice of the lower Appellate Court as an Amicus

Curie was appointed for the appellant since the counsel engaged by

the appellant did not take any steps on the date fixed. Naturally,

therefore, the fact of settlement of the case in the Lok Adalat, not

being within the knowledge of Amicus Curie, could not be brought

on record. Since the matter was settled way back in the year-2016

and the bank has already issued a closure certificate, the matter

needs to be disposed of in terms of the compromise as otherwise the

impugned judgment of conviction would stand confirmed despite

settlement of the matter by way of compromise.

9.

After considering the rival submissions and the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that

the order being passed by the Appellate Court without knowledge of

the developments occurring in the matter after passing of the

Page 3 of 3

impugned judgment by the Trial Court, should not be allowed to

subsist. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside and the

matter should be heard afresh by the Appellate Court who shoud

pass necessary orders taking into account the development occurring

after passing of the impugned judgment by the Trial Court. Learned

Appellate Court shall consider the fact of compromise between the

parties and pass necessary orders with regard to the judgment of the

Trial Court.

10.

Though the Appellate Court cannot be blamed for passing the

impugned judgme