Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010277212019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./56/2020
MANASH KALITA
S/O SRI BHAGIRATH KALITA,
R/O H. NO. 223,
RAJGARH ROAD,
BYE LANE NO. 10,
P.S.-BHANGAGARH,
DIST-KAMRUP(M),
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Represented By PP,Assam
2:M/S INDRANU AIR TRAVELS PVT. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
SRI JAIPRAKASH SARMA
S/O LATE NATHMONI SARMAH
R/O H.NO.-29
BYE LANE NO. 4
TARUN NAGAR
ABC
G.S. ROAD
P.S.-BHANGAGARH
DIST-KAMRUP(M)
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
ORDER
Date : 29.01.2021 Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
Challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment and order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) in Crl. Appl. No. 31/2017. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge upheld and confirmed the conviction recorded and sentenced awarded to the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the learned Trial Court in C.R. Case No. 1652 C/2014. The petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 4 (four) months and pay compensation of Rs. 19 Lakhs and imprisonment for another 1 (one) month in default of payment of compensation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no enforceable debt and, as such, the impugned order of conviction and sentence by the learned Court below was improper and illegal.
It is evident from the record that issuance of the cheque by the petitioner was not denied.
PW2, being the drawer of the cheque, who has been examined as DW2, admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of issuance of the cheque, he was liable to pay Rs. 19 Lakhs to the complainant. This admission is more than sufficient to establish that there was enforceable debt at the time of issuance of the cheque. The financial transaction between the parties has also been admitted by this witness in his cross-examination. The liability of the drawer of the cheque and the enforceable debt being admitted in evidence in unequivocal term, the petitioner is not free to argue that there was no enforceable debt, inasmuch as, such argument is apparently against the material brought on record. When the drawer of the cheque clearly admitted that there Page No.# 3/3 was an enforceable debt to the tune of Rs. 19 Lakh for which the cheque was issued, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel that there was no enforceable debt at the time of issuance of the cheque. Since the judgment is assailed on the sole ground of absence of enforceable debt, which seems to have failed in view of the materials on record, this criminal revision seems to be devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant