Suhas Bhattacharya @ Buro vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 3492 Cal

52   17.05.2023                             CRR 3571 of 2012
NB
     Ct. No.236
                   In the matter of:- Suhas Bhattacharya @ Buro                    ...petitioner

The office report indicates that notice could not be served upon the

parties as both of them left their respective addresses.

This revisional application is pending since 2012 which challenges

the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2012 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas, South

in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2011 affirming thereby the judgment and order

dated 29th April, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Baruipur in a proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Briefly stated, Asit Gayen field a petition of complaint before the

learned jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 138 of the NI Act stating, inter

alia, that on 8th August, 2004, he gave a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Subhas

Bhattacharya who promised to pay back by 8 th February, 2005. The accused

person issued a cheque vide no.103609 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- drawn on

United Bank of India, Sonarpur Branch. The cheque was duly presented and

dishonoured on the ground that fund was insufficient. Statutory notice under

Section 138(b) of NI Act was given to the accused person who refused to

comply with the said notice.

Learned jurisdictional Magistrate after invoking the provision of

Section 200 Cr.PC was pleased to issue process against the accused person

who surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and stood the trial

pleading his innocence.

Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence of witnesses on

record was pleased to hold the accused person guilty of committing offence

within the meaning of Section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

sentenced the accused person to suffer simple imprisonment for six months

and to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation.

The accused person made an unsuccessful attempt to reverse the

order of conviction in Court of appeal No.90 of 2011. I have perused the

judgment impugned, I do not find any reason to unsettle concurrent finding of

learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court. In my view, the impugned

judgment does not warrant any interference. Consequently, the revisional

application is dismissed.

A copy of the judgment be sent down to the learned Trial Court for

information and necessary action.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the

parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)