Gauhati High Court
Rita Das vs Mitul Das on 12 August, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010038422025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
I.A.(Crl.)/682/2025
RITA DAS
W/O RABIRAM DAS
R/O VILL.- BAMYNA P.S.- BARPETA DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781309.
VERSUS
MITUL DAS
S/O SAILADHAR DAS
R/O VILL.- KRISHNA NAGAR
P.S.- BARPETA
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM PIN- 781309.
------------
Advocate for : MR. GHANSHYAM BARGAYARY
Advocate for : appearing for MITUL DAS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
12.08.2025
Heard Mr. P.P. Medhi, learned counsel for the applicant/revision-petitioner.
Page No.# 2/3
2. The instant interlocutory application is preferred by the applicant/revision-petitioner
seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against her and for her release on bail.
3. The applicant as the revision-petitioner has preferred the accompanying criminal revision
petition against a Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Barpeta ['the Appellate Court'] in Criminal Appeal Case no. 04/2024 whereby the Appellate
Court while dismissing the criminal appeal preferred by the applicant/revision-petitioner herein,
has affirmed the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta ['the Trial Court'] in N.I. Case no. 58/2018. By the Judgment
and Order dated 19.02.2024, the Trial Court had convicted the applicant-revision petitioner for the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument [N.I.] Act, 1881, as amended, and the
applicant-revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for another three months.
4. The complaint case, N.I. Case no. 58/2018 was instituted by the opposite party-respondent
herein as the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act after
dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 2,10,000/- issued by the applicant-revision petitioner
from an account maintained by her at State Bank of India, Barpeta Bazar Branch.
5. It has been averred that subsequent to the Judgment and Order delivered by the Appellate
Court, the applicant/revision-petitioner was produced before the Trial court on 22.01.2025 in
execution of a Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest [NBWA] issued against her by the Trial Court. On
being so produced on 22.01.2025, the applicant/revision-petitioner was sent to the District Jail,
Barpeta to serve out the sentence passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court.
As on date, the applicant-revision petitioner's period of custody is 200 days. In other words, the
applicant-revision petitioner has served the substantive sentence of six months.
6. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development, [2023] 10 SCC
446, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that in a case where the Appellate Court
is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% provided in Section 148 of N.I. Act will be unjust
or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant,
Page No.# 3/3
exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. When Appellate Court considers the
prayer under Section 389, CrPC [presently, Section 430, BNSS] of an accused who has been
convicted for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to
consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence
without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. If the
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to
the said conclusion must be recorded.
7. If a person faces incarceration for making default in payment of the fine imposed,
ordinarily, such convicted person makes effort to deposit the fine amount imposed in order to
avoid incarceration. The applicant/revision-petitioner is a lady, aged about 50 years.
8. Having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the case, as narrated above, this Court
finds that the case in hand is one where an exception from the rigours of Section 148, N.I. Act,
can be made. Accordingly, it is ordered that pending disposal of the accompanying criminal
revision petition, which has already been admitted, the remaining part of the sentence passed
against the applicant-revision petitioner shall remain suspended. Further, the applicant-revision
petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
9. With the observations made and the directions given above, the interlocutory application is
disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
