Bolin Ch. Deori @ Balin Ch. Deori vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2968 Gua

                                                                        Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010002432012




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./6/2012

             BOLIN CH. DEORI @ BALIN CH. DEORI
             S/O SRI GAJAI NAND DEORI, R/O ODAL BAKRA, PUB SURAJ NAGAR,
             BYELANE NO.1, P.O. KAHILIPARA, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN- 781019.



             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR


             2:SRI JITUMONI BHANDAR KAYASTHA
              S/O LT. RATUL BHANDAR KAYASTHA R/O KHETRI HARDIA
              P.S. HAJO
              DIST. KMARUP M
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS.A KALITA

Advocate for the Respondent :

-B E F O R E -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA 18.11.2021

Heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the respondent No.1.

Page No.# 2/4

This criminal revision petition has been filed by the revisionist challenging

the order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,

Kamrup at Guwahati in C.R. Case No.237 c/2006 as well as the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.32/2008.

The aforesaid C.R. Case No.237c/2006 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 before this court stating that a cheque amounting to Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand) was given to him by the revisionist, which was dishonored by the bank due to insufficient fund. Thereafter, after giving notice to the petitioner in accordance with law and waiting for the stipulated period, the complaint was made.

The trial Court examined all the material witnesses including PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 was an employee of UCO Bank.

The pleaded case of the defence was that the cheque, which was issued by him to the complainant was for only Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand). However, the cheque was thereafter manipulated by adding one "zero" to the figure of Rs. 21,000/- mentioned on the cheque to make it Rs.2,10,000/-. PW-2, who was an employee of UCO Bank, admitted that although the last "zero" which had appeared in figures appeared to be from a different ink but, in such cases, the standard practice adopted by the Bank is to go by the amount mentioned in words and, admittedly, the amount mentioned in words were clearly written as "Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only".

Under these circumstances, there was no scope for the trial Court to determine that there was any forgery. Therefore, the trial Court vide judgment dated 27.06.2008 convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Page No.# 3/4

Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand) and, in default of payment of compensation D/W shall be issued for hearing of the same.

The matter was taken in appeal.

In the Appellate Court the conviction has remained the same as the Appellate Court was of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. However, while holding thus, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.04.2010 was also of the view that the sentence imposed by the trial Court appeared to be harsh and the appellant/revisionist should be given the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court was set aside and the petitioner was directed to appear before the trial Court within thirty days from the date of the order. It was observed that on such appearance, the trial Court shall release the petitioner after due admonition. By the said judgment, the appellant/revisionist was also directed to pay the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.4,20,000/- to the complainant/respondent within a period of thirty days.

Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

I have gone through the judgments passed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. I am of the view that there is no fault in the determination by the trial court as all the relevant witnesses were examined and the prosecution was able to establish its case that the cheque was indeed dishonoured and, therefore, the accused/ revisionist was convicted as mentioned above. As far as the sentence is concerned, since the appellate Court Page No.# 4/4

has already granted relief to the petitioner under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, no interference is liable to be made in this criminal revision petition.

In view of the above, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant