Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Item No.05 Purulia Cement (P) Ltd vs S. Tewary Alias Sefali Tewary & Anr on 11 February, 2022
11.02.2022 CRA 19 of 2002
Court No.40
Item No.05 Purulia Cement (P) Ltd.
Vs.
S. Tewary alias Sefali Tewary & Anr.
Akd ----------
Mr. Sabir Ahmed,
Mr. Partha Ghosh.
... for the respondent no. 1
Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala,
Mr. Pratick Bose.
... for the State/respondent no. 2.
None appears on behalf of the appellant, Purulia Cement
(P) Ltd.
Respondent no. 1 is represented by Mr. Sabir Ahmed and
Mr. Partha Ghosh, learned Lawyers.
Respondent no. 2, State of West Bengal, is represented by
Mr. N. P. Agarwala and Mr. Pratick Bose, learned Lawyers. Let
their appointments be regularized.
From the conduct of the appellant I feel that the appellant
is not interested to proceed with the appeal.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant
being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Purulia, in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of
1999 whereby the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Purulia, in Complaint Case No. 30 of 1997 was set aside.
The case as projected by the appellant may briefly be
stated as under:
The respondent no. 1, S. Tewary, in discharge of its
liabilities issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- bearing no.
B/25/100 330910 dated 21.02.1997 drawn on State Bank of
India, Bankola branch, in favour of the appellant, Purulia
Cement (P) Ltd. But, the cheque issued by the
respondent/accused stood dishonoured due to insufficient
fund.
On consideration of the evidence on record the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, by the judgment and order
dated 29th November, 1999 found the respondent/accused
guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act and she was sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-; in default, to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for one year.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate the respondent preferred the appeal being Criminal
Appeal No. 35 of 1999 before the learned Sessions Judge,
Purulila. By the impugned judgment and order the learned
Sessions Judge passed the order of acquittal in favour of the
respondent.
I have minutely gone through both the judgments passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned First
Appellate Court respectively.
I have considered the materials on record.
Having considered the judgment as impugned and the
materials on record, I find no reason to interfere with the
judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
Let the lower Court records along with a copy of this
order be sent down to the learned Court below.
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
