Arun Kumar Deyi vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 6251 Cal

10. 12.2021                           C.R.R.315 of 2010
    sl.4,sk
    ct.29        In the matter of Arun Kumar Deyi....petitioner.

                           Mr.Pravas Bhattacharyya
                           Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
                                       ...for the State.

None appears on behalf of the contesting petitioner to

this revisional application.

Mr. Pravas Bhattacharyya, along with Mr. Sandip

Chakraborty, learned Advocates who usually appear on behalf of the

State are requested to appear in this revisional application.

Learned Public Prosecutor is requested to regularize the

appointment of Mr. Pravas Bhattacharyya and Mr. Sandip

Chakraborty, learned advocates in due course.

Learned Advocate for the State appears and submits that

parties are not interested in this case and orders of this court passed on

5.2.2010 and 30.3.2010 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,000/-

but that has not yet been complied with.

I find nothing on record regarding compliance of order of

this court, the revisional application was preferred against judgment

dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bolpur, Birbhum in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2008 thereby

affirming the judgment and order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, Birbhum in

Complaint Case No. 142 of 2005.

From the record, it appears that the petitioner did not

comply the order of this court by depositing Rs. 20,000/- before the

Jurisdictional Court.

The facts of the case is that the complainant/bank under

the name and Style Muyurakshi Gramin Bank from which one customer namely, Arun Kumar De being an account holder of the

bank to consumer durable loan Rs. 37,000/- on 6. 10.2001 to purchase

motor cycle after execution of the necessary documents in favour of

the bank. On 24.4.2005 accused issued a cheque for Rs. 23,750/- in

favour of the bank drawn on the same branch. The cheque was

presented for encashment from 4.5.2005 and same was dishonored

with the remarks "insufficiency of fund". Thereafter on 7.5.3005

complainant/bank sent a remand notice as well as under certificate of

posting, the demand notice was returned with postal remarks

'refused'. The petitioner did not make any repayment of the

complainant/bank.

This case was filed by the learned Magistrate discussed

the entire evidence on record and concluded by passing an order of

conviction against petitioner/accused.

On perusal of the judgment, I do not find any illegality or

irregularity to exercise the power under Section 401 read with Section

482 of Cr.P.C.

After careful of the judgment, I do not find the learned

Magistrate recorded the judgment based on no evidence or ignored

any material evidence or exercised power arbitrarily.

The revisional court can interfere with the findings of the

fact of the learned Magistrate only when the same is perverse and not

merely when another view is also possible.

Considering all facts and circumstances of this case, this

revisional application is dismissed.

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J. )