Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Anowar 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./372/2013
RIDHWAN HUSSAIN RAMADAN
S/O ANOWAR HUSSIAN R/O HOUSE NO. 40, GREENLAND, BAGHARBARI,
P.S. DISPUR, P.O. PANJABRI, GHY-37 DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM.
VERSUS
ANOWAR KHAN
RANI BAZAR BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, KAMARPATTY ROAD,
FANCYBAZAR, P.O. and P.S. PANBAZAR, GHY-1, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P SHARMA, MR.K M HASSAN,MR.K H KHANDAKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.M BORAH, MRP DOLEY,MS.P PATHAK,MR.A K
BHUYAN,MS.B BORA,MS.N CHOUDHURY
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. Choudhury,
learned counsel for the respondents.
Page No.# 2/4
2. By the present revision petition, the petitioner, namely, Ridhwan Hussain Ramadan,
who is convicted in the Complaint Case being CR Case No. 769 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 has taken a
loan of Rs. 21,00,000/- (Twenty one lacs) from the complainant in discharge of debt and
issued three numbers of post dated cheques bearing Nos. (i) 022838 dated 07.07.2009, (ii)
022837 dated 09.07.2009 and (iii) 022836 dated 12.07.2009 amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/-
(seven lacs) each which were dishonoured.
4. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and proved several documents.
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 daughter of the
complainant and the complainant has pressurized him to issue cheque in his name and
accordingly, the accused/petitioner had issued cheques in his name. Therefore, he has no
liability towards the complainant rather it was to the daughter of the complainant.
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
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. 26/2013 arising out of said CR Case No.
769c/2010 and after re-appreciation of the evidence and the materials available on record,
Page No.# 3/4
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 petitioner/accused to surrender
before the learned Trial Court to serve the sentence within a period of 30 (thirty) days and
noting the fact that the petitioner/accused did not surrender in terms of the Appellate Court's
order dated 20.06.2013, directed the petitioner/accused to produce his Surrender Certificate.
However, no such Surrender Certificate has been produced before the Court by the
petitioner/accused 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 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, i.e., Shri Anowar Khan, PW-1, through his 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/petitioner is that the debt
Page No.# 4/4
is due to his daughter and not to him. However, cheques were issued by the complainant.
Such statement of the accused/petitioner has neither been supported by any evidence nor
the accused/petitioner could discharge his initial burden.
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
