Page No.# 1/7 vs Manjur Alom Laskar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4746 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs Manjur Alom Laskar on 21 August, 2025

                                                                     Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010274332023




                                                               2025:GAU-AS:11213

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

                              Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./524/2023

           FARID UDDIN LASKAR
           S/O LATE MASARAF ALI LASKAR
           R/O SONABARIGHAT PT.II
           P.S. SILCHAR
           DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM



           VERSUS

           MANJUR ALOM LASKAR
           S/O LATE LIAQUAT ALI LASKAR
           R/O SONABARI GHAT, PT.II
           P.S. SILCHAR
           DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM



Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. J Laskar


Advocate for the respondent: Mr. N.H Barbhuiya

                                          BEFORE
               HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER


Date of Hearing           :       21.08.2025.


Date of Judgment         :       21.08.2025.
                                                                            Page No.# 2/7

                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

21.08.2025

1. Heard Mr. J Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.H Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. The present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2022 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Cachar, Silchar by which the appeal preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.06.2018, the respondent had filed a complaint against him under Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881 being C.R.(NI) Case No. 111 of 2018 before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar.

4. The respondent as PW-1 deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that the petitioner took a loan of an amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- from the respondent with an assurance that the same would be repaid when the respondent demanded and therefore, on demand the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.3,30,000/- bearing cheque no. 003138 dated 20.04.2018. But when the cheque was presented before the bank, the same was returned on the ground of insufficient funds. The petitioner adduced evidence as DW-1 and denied borrowing any money from the respondent.

5. It is contended that the said C.R.(NI) Case No. 111 of 2018 was disposed of by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar on 10.05.2022 without considering the evidence of the petitioner and convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881 sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- in default of payment, the petitioner was to undergo simple Page No.# 3/7

imprisonment for a term of 1 month.

6. Against the aforesaid order dated 10.05.2022, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Cachar, Silchar being Criminal Appeal No. 19/2022 which was also dismissed on 16.11.2023, thereby, reaffirming the order dated 10.05.2022 passed in C.r.(NI) Case No. 111 of 2018 passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition on the following grounds :

(i) That the petitioner had clearly deposed that he has not borrowed any money from the respondent, however, such fact was never considered by the Ld. Trial Court as well as the appellate court.

(ii) The Ld. Trial Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the exhibit 1 (cheque) was filled up by the respondent and not by the petitioner.

(iii) That the petitioner and the respondent were on visiting terms and the evidence of DW-1 as well as PW-1 before the Ld. Trial Court shows that the respondent used to visit the house of the petitioner and therefore, the likelihood of the respondent filling up the cheque was very much possible, however, the same was not considered by the Ld. Trial Court as well as the appellate court.

8. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.2022 convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881 as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2022 by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Page No.# 4/7

FTC, Cachar, Silchar may be quashed and set-aside.

9. Mr. N.H Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the sole respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the concurrent findings by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar as well as the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Cachar, Silchar goes to show that there is no cause for interference in the impugned judgment and orders by this Court.

10. It is submitted that the petitioner had never disputed his signature in the exhibit 1/cheque. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Bir Singh Vrs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) SCC online SC 138 which has also been relied upon by the Ld.Trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment has stated that :

"A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted."

11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned

counsel for the sole respondent submits that the cheque has been duly signed by the petitioner and it was dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, valid demand notice was also served upon the accused in terms of the provisions of the N.I Act, 1881. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh (Supra) has also categorically stated that it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any other person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer.

12. In view of the laws laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also in view of the fact that all the ingredients have been fulfilled for the offence Page No.# 5/7

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881, learned counsel for the sole respondent prays that this Court may not interfere in the concurrent findings of the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Cachar, Silchar and the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar.

13. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the pleadings as well as the TCR.

14. It is well-settled that for an offence to be made out under Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881, the accused must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him with a bank. The cheque must have been issued for discharge, in whole or in part, in any legally enforceable debt or liability. The cheque must have been presented to the bank within the period of its validity. Thereafter, the cheque must be returned unpaid by the bank due to insufficient funds in the account of the drawer. The payee or holder of the cheque, in due course, must issue a written notice to the drawer within 30 days from the date of receiving the information from the bank regarding dishonor and if the drawer fails to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days, of receiving the notice, a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881, must be filed within 1 month from the date on which the cause of action arises.

15. In the case at hand it is observed that all the conditions/ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881 has been fulfilled. The petitioner/accused had borrowed Rs.3,30,000/- from the complainant/respondent. It is also seen that the petitioner has not disputed that the cheque bearing No. 003136 bears his signature. It is also not disputed that when the respondent presented the said cheque to his banker for collection of the same from the account of the petitioner, the same was returned with memo dated 09.05.2018 to the respondent informing him that Page No.# 6/7

the said cheque bearing no. 003136 has been dishonored due to lack of funds in the account of the petitioner/accused. The complainant/respondent had reported the matter to the petitioner and made request to make payment, but the petitioner did not make payment of the said cheque amount.

16. The only ground taken by the present petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition is that he has never borrowed any money from the respondent and that the cheque was not filled up by him. The petitioner has also submitted that the respondent used to visit his house and therefore, it was the respondent who had filled up the cheque. Be that as it may, the petitioner before the two Ld. Courts below or before this Court has never stated that the signature on the cheque did not belong to him. In the case of Bir Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer. But, it is immaterial if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. And if the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 of the N.I Act, 1881 would be attracted. It is also not in dispute that the cheque was dishonored when it was presented by the complainant/respondent to his bank.

17. During the evidence before the Ld.Trial Court, the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that the cheque/exhibit 1 was issued by him in favour of the respondent. The petitioner also failed to adduce any evidence to show that he had never borrowed any money from the respondent. A mere statement of not having any liability is not sufficient.

18. In the case of Navaneethammal Vrs Arjuna Chetty reported in (1996) 6 SCC 166 and also in the case of Rinagaraj (Dead) Through LRs. and Another Vrs Rajmani and Others reported in 2025 Page No.# 7/7

INSC 478, the Supreme Court has held that interference with the concurrent findings of the learned courts below by the High Court must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons.

19. This Court, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar in case No. C.R.(NI) Case No. 111 of 2018 and also the judgment dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal

20. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.

21. The Registry is directed to send back the T.C.R forthwith.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant