Recently, the Calcutta High Court dealt with a Criminal Revisional Application seeking to set aside the judgement passed by the District Judge that upheld the Magistrate’s order convicting the Petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Brief Facts:
The facts of the case were that the complainant and his wife had agreed to purchase an office space for ₹68 lakhs, allegedly paid to the petitioners/accused in full. The accused failed to hand over the possession or execute a conveyance deed. So, they agreed to refund the amount with compensation aggregating to ₹1,10,00,000 and executed a refund agreement.
In discharge of partial liability, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque of ₹25 lakhs, which got dishonoured with the remark “exceeds arrangement”. Despite the demand notice, the petitioner didn’t pay. The complainant moved the trial court, which convicted the petitioners/accused under Section 138 of the NI Act. The revisional court upheld the conviction.
The petitioners/accused contended that the refund agreement and cheque were obtained under coercion. They also contended that the consideration amount of ₹68 lakhs had not been paid by the complainant, and that the complainant had failed to show the source of such a huge payment. Petitioner no. 2 lodged a complaint to that effect with the concerned police station.
High Court’s observations:
The Calcutta High Court observed that, “This Court finds that apart from the bald allegation and complaint, purportedly lodged by Petitioner no. 2 on the same date, there was no independent, reliable, or corroborative evidence before the Trial Court. Only lodging of a complaint, without any substantive proof of coercion, threat, or compulsion, cannot displace the statutory presumption, especially when the Petitioners chose to remain silent thereafter and did not take any concurrent step to challenge the validity of the agreement of the cheque.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009), in which it was observed that “a mere bald plea is insufficient; the accused must bring probable evidence on record to support his contention. Such evidence is squarely absent in the present case.”
The HC further noted that the plea of non-payment of ₹68 lakhs also remains unsubstantiated as the petitioners failed to produce bank statements or financial records to support the allegations. The existence of a refund agreement further weakened the Petitioner’s case.
High Court’s decision:
The Hon’ble Court did not find any infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Revisional Court and hence, dismissed the Criminal Revision Application.
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Case Title: Ma Kreeng Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Mr. Dipak Saha & Anr.
Judgement Date: 19th November 2025
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
