Prashanta Kumar Baruah vs M/S Gupta Hardware Pvt. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 2483 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010013652014




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



                                  Case No. Crl.Rev.P./357/2014

         PRASHANTA KUMAR BARUAH
         S/O UMESH CHANDRA B ARUAH HOUSE NO. 8
         SURAJ MUKTI PATH
         R G BARUAH ROAD
         GHY-5
         DIST. KAMRUP M
         ASSAM.


          VERSUS

         M/S GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD
         DR. R P ROAD
         GANESHGURI CHARIALI DISPUR
         GHY-6
         P.S. DISPUR
         KAMRUP
         ASSAM
         REPRESENTED BY SRI MANAB LAHKAR
         S/O GOPAL CHANDRA LAHKAR
         R/O DOWN TOWN HOSPITAL BACK SIDE DISPUR
         GHY-6
         P.S. DISPUR
         KAMRUP
         ASSAM.


         ------------
         Advocate for : MR.A BISWAS
         Advocate for : MR.M N NATH appearing for M/S GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD
                                                                        Page No.# 2/4




                                 BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                               JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT AND ORDER 08.10.2021

Heard the learned counsel Mr. A. Biswas, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Nath, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 482 of the said Code, challenging the validity and propriety of the Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2013 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial

Court passed in CR Case No. 3122 C of 2009.

3. The present petitioner had purchased some building materials worth Rs.4,08,000/- from the respondent. Thereafter, in order to pay the said sum the petitioner issued a cheque drawn at State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Ganeshguri, Guwahati from his account no. SB A/C No.30037762157. The respondent deposited the cheque at Bank of Baroda, Dispur, Guwahati for encashment but the cheque was dishonoured with a remark 'not arranged for'. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioner as required by the relevant provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act. Finally, a case bearing No.

CR 312C /2009 under Section 138 of the NI Act was instituted against the petitioner. The respondents examined three witnesses and the petitioner examined himself as a witness.

Page No.# 3/4

4. On the basis of the evidence on-record, the trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for 6 (six) months. The trial Court acting under Section 357 (3) of the CrPC further directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,04,000/-.

5. On being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal but the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, the present application has been filed.

6. The petitioner took a specific plea that on 20.02.2009 his cheque book containing cheques no.710447 to 710550 was lost somewhere. He has claimed that the cheque leafs were kept signed by him. Therefore, on 21.02.2009 he had lodged an FIR before the Police and the connected GD Entry No. is 619/2009 dated 21.02.2009.

7. Therefore, it can be held that it is admitted that the concerned cheque bore the signature of the petitioner. Now, the question is whether the fact of loss of the cheque book or theft of the same is proved or not. The answer to this question must be given in negative. Because the petitioner did not examine any witnesses to prove the fact that he had in fact lodged an FIR at Fancy Bazar Police Station on 21.02.2009 and a GD Entry No. 619/2009 dated 21.02.2009 was made. Therefore, it can be easily held that the petitioner lied while taking the aforesaid plea. In a criminal case if an accused lies, it becomes a circumstance against him.

Page No.# 4/4

8. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, gives the High Courts and the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. Section 397 of the said Code gives a right to the revisional Court to exercise its powers of supervision over subordinate Courts or tribunals and it is in the exercise of that right that the revisional Court passes its orders. Revision means the action of revising, especially critical or careful examination or perusal with a view to correcting or improving the acts of subordinate Courts or tribunals. Unlike an appeal, which is a statutory right, It is not obligatory upon the revisional Court to interfere with the order under revision even though the order may be improper.

9. After going through the impugned judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, I find that both the Courts have correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a correct finding.

10. With the aforesaid premised reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the revision petition is devoid of any merit and, therefore, the present revision petition stands dismissed and disposed of and dismissed accordingly.

11. LCR be returned.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant