Page 1 of 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No.465 of 2021

Shyam Sundar Das

….

Petitioner

Mr. S.R. Mulia, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and another

….

Opposite Parties

Mr. M.K. Mohanty, A.S.C.

Mr. R.R. Nayak, Advoate for O.P. No.2.

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER

14.02.2022

I.A. No.659 of 2021

04.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual

/Physical Mode).

2.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

3.

This is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act in filing the criminal revision. There is delay of 725

days in filing the criminal revision.

4.

Considering the grounds stated in the I.A, delay in filing the

revision is condoned.

The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

// 2 //

Page 2 of 8

CRLREV No.465 of 2021

05.

1.

Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court vide order dated

21.02.2021, the complainant-Opposite Party No.2 has appeared through

Mr. R.R. Nayak, Advocate and filed an affidavit dated 19.11.2022. The

said affidavit is taken on record.

2.

On the consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final

disposal, although the matter is listed under the heading for fresh

admission.

3.

Heard Mr. S.R. Mulia, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.

M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Opposite

Party No.1-State and Mr. R.R. Nayak, learned counsel for the

complainant-Opposite Party No.2.

4.

The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 401

read with Section 397, Cr.P.C. by the accused-Petitioner challenging

the order of conviction dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2018 thereby

confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.07.2018

passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri in I.C.C. No.465 of 2013 (New

F. No.128 of 2015) thereby convicting the accused-Petitioner under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

5.

The complaint case, in short, is that the complainant-Opposite

Party No.2 instituted a complaint case against the present Petitioner for

commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the

complaint petition, it was alleged by the complainant that he had a Steel

and Aluminum utensil shop at Hat Chhak, Nilgiri and the accused-

Petitioner used to take utensils from his shop partly on credit and partly

// 3 //

Page 3 of 8

on payment. As on 17.03.1013, a sum of Rs.55,000/- was outstanding

against the accused-Petitioner. On being requested by the Opposite

Party No.2, the Petitioner on 05.08.2013 issued a cheque bearing

No.471505 dated 05.08.2013 for Rs.55,000/- to clear off the entire

outstanding dues. The said cheque was presented for encashment to the

Banker by the Opposite Party No.2. However, the same was

dishonoured by the Banker with the endorsement that “funds

insufficient” and accordingly, intimation was sent by the Bankers to the

Opposite Party No.2.

6.

After the above noted cheque was dishonoured by the Banker,

the Opposite Party No.2 issued a demand notice through his Advocate

to the Petitioner on 21.08.2013 by Registered Post with A.D.

demanding payment of the cheque amount from the Petitioner.

However, said notice was returned without service with an

endorsement that the “addressee absent”. Accordingly, on 22.10.2013,

the Opposite Party No.2 filed the above noted complaint case under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

7.

Learned trial court after going through the evidence and

materials available on record, by a judgment dated 30.07.2018 in the

above noted ICC Case found the Petitioner of the offence under Section

138 of the N.I. Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to

unde