Advocates:
['HK BHOWMIK', 'PP', '', 'Ms B SUR', 'S MAHAJAN']

Page - 1 of 22

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

Crl. Rev. P No.60/2018

Shri Rinku Debnath @ basu,

Son of Shri Bidhu Bhusan Debnath,

Resident of Ujan Abhoynagar,

P.O-Abhoynagar, P.S-East Agartala,

District-West Tripura.

…………… Petitioner(s).

Vs.

Smt. Sumana Saha,

Wife of Shri Krishna Bahadur Thapa,

C/o. Shri Dulal Chandra Das,

Resident of 79 Tilla, P.O-Kunjaban,

P.S-East Agartala, Dist. West Tripura,

PIN-799006.

…………… Respondent(s).

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY

For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)

: Mr. S. Mahajan, Advocate.

Date of hearing

: 4^th December, 2020.

Date of Judgment & Order

: 31^st March, 2021.

Whether fit for reporting : NO.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

[1]

This criminal revision petition arises out of the judgment and

order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court

No.2, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2017 reversing the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.06.2017

delivered in Case No. NI 111 of 2009 by the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with

the said judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Agartala, the

Page - 2 of 22

original complainant has preferred this revision petition challenging the

order of acquittal of the respondent.

[2]

Heard Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

[3]

Facts of the case are as under:

Petitioner and respondent used to work as advocate’s clerks

at Agartala and, as such, they were known to each other. The

respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- on 30.10.2007 from the

petitioner for purchasing a Maruti car for doing business. While taking

the loan, the respondent assured the petitioner that she would repay

the loan within six months. The petitioner then borrowed Rs.50,000/-

from Sri Swapan Pal (PW-2) and Rs.80,000/- from his friend Sri Sajal

Laskar and gave the entire sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as loan to the

respondent. Despite lapse of the assured period of six months, the

respondent did not repay the loan to the petitioner. As a result of

constant persuasion of the petitioner, the respondent ultimately issued a

cheque in his name bearing No. MPS/M 028821 dated 22.05.2009 for a

sum of Rs.1,30,000/- drawn on UBI, G.B Hospital extension counter at

Agartala against her Savings Bank Account No.1449 towards repayment

of the loan. The petitioner presented the said cheque for encashment in

UCO Bank, High Court extension branch where he maintained Savings

Bank Account No.4485. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of

fund in the said account of the respondent and the fact was informed to

Page - 3 of 22

the petitioner from his bank vide cheque returning memo dated

27.05.2009 (Exbt.3).

[4]

The petitioner then issued statutory demand notice dated

01.06.2009 (Exbt.4) to the respondent in terms of Section 138 of the

N.I. Act demanding repayment of the said amount. The respondent

having failed to make the payment within the notice period, the

petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the

Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura at Agartala.

[5]

The case was then made over to the Court of Judicial

Magistrate, First Class (Court No.5) at Agartala for trial. The trial Court

examined the complainant petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C and after

taking cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act,

summoned the accused respondent. The accused sought for exemption

from personal appearance which was rejected by the trial Court and to

compel her appearance arrest warrant was issued against her. The

complainant respondent also submitted a petition before the Court

saying that the original cheque submitted by him along with his

complaint was miss