Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Miss Nagma Khan on 12 November, 2024
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010010802013
2024:GAU-AS:11030
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./373/2013
RIDHWAN HUSSAIN RAMADAN
S/O ANOWAR HUSSAIN R/O HOUSE NO. 40
GREENLAND BAGHARBARI P.S. DISPUR
P.O. PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37 DIST. KAMRUP
M
ASSAM.
VERSUS
MISS NAGMA KHAN
D/O ANOWAR KHAN RANI BAZAR BUILDING 3RD FLOOR
KAMARPATTY ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.O. and P.S. PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-1 DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR.P SHARMA
Advocate for : MR.A K BHUYAN appearing for MISS NAGMA KHAN
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
12-11-2024
1. Heard Mr. K.M.Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N.
Page No.# 2/4
Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By the present revision petition, the petitioner, namely, Ridhwan Hussain
Ramadan, who is convicted in the Complaint Case being CR No. 770 c/2010 by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S)-II, Kamrup, Guwahati under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has challenged the judgment and sentence dated
20.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup
Guwahati, whereby the learned Court below upheld the judgment and conviction dated
04.01.2013 passed in the aforesaid case by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate
(S)-II, Kamrup, Guwahati.
3. The complaint was filed with an alleged fact that the accused/petitioner had taken a
loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty Five lacs) from the complainant in discharge of debt and
issued two numbers of post dated cheques bearing Nos. (i) 022834 dated 02.07.2009 and
(ii) 022835 dated 05.07.2009 amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- (eight lacs) each which were
dishonoured on 01.01.2010 due to insufficient funds.
4. The complainant, i.e., Naghma Khan examined herself as PW-1 and one bank officer
as PW-2. She proved several documents against the accused/petitioner.
5. The present petitioner as an accused contested the said case by pleading not guilty
to the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and examined himself under Section 313
CrPC as DW-1.
6. The defence case as unfolded during the cross-examination as well as under Section
313 CrPC is that the petitioner/accused had taken a loan from the complainant for making
investment on commodity market and towards part payment of said loan. He deposed
that he was willing to repay the entire amount and that he had issued the aforesaid
cheques as security.
7. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary
evidence led by the parties had found the present petitioner/accused therein guilty under
Page No.# 3/4
Section 138 of the NI Act and convicted him as recorded herein above.
8. Being aggrieved with the same, the accused/petitioner approached the Appellate
Court by filing the Criminal Appeal being Crl. Apl. No. 25/2013 arising out of said CR Case
No. 770c/2010 and after re-appreciation of the evidence and the materials available on
record, the Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 20.06.2013 upheld the
judgment and conviction dated 04.01.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court.
9. Thereafter, the accused/petitioner has filed the present revision petition assailing
both the aforesaid judgment and orders.
10. Taking note and the order of the learned Appellate Court, by order dated
05.11.2013 passed in the present revision petition, this Court asked the
accused/petitioner to surrender before the learned Trial Court to serve the sentence
within a period of 30 (thirty) days and noting the fact that the accused/petitioner did not
surrender in terms of the Appellate Court's order dated 20.06.2013, directed him to
produce his Surrender Certificate. However, no such Surrender Certificate has been
produced before the Court by the accused/petitioner and he has not surrendered till date.
11. In exercise of its inherent power, this Court can set right a patent defect or an error
of jurisdiction or of law, can pass an order to prevent abuse of process and for securing
ends of justice. Such power can be exercised where the decision under challenge is
grossly erroneous, there is non- compliance of provisions of law, the finding recorded is
based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily or perversely. It is equally well settled that a revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court should not be exercised in a routine manner.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Babu vs State reported in 2015 (8) SCC
774 held that normally revisional jurisdiction should be exercised in a question of law.
However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it should be exercised in the class of
cases resulting in a perverse finding. The Supreme Court went to say that the power is
required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the
Page No.# 4/4
Court.
13. Therefore, let this Court examine the facts of the present case in the touchtone of
the aforesaid principle of law.
14. In the case in hand, the complainant, PW-1, through her oral as well as
documentary evidence has been able to establish that the liability of the complainant
inasmuch as only defence that has been projected by the accused is that the debt is due
to her.
15. This Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Court below
which are based on sound reasoning. In the considered opinion of this Court and as
discussed herein above, the learned Court below has duly appreciated the evidence on
record and the conclusion arrived at on the basis of such appreciation of evidence cannot
be termed as a decision which could not have been arrived at on the basis of evidence
available on record. This Court has not found anything as regards as patent defect of
jurisdiction or of law. The learned counsel has not also been able to show non-compliance
of any provisions of law or that the findings is based on no evidence or that the material
evidence is ignored or that the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
16. For the reasons recorded herein above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the well reasoned decisions of the learned Court below. Accordingly, the present revision
petition of the petitioner named above, stands dismissed.
17. LCR be sent back.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
