[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Bipul Chandra Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 16 December, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/3
GAHC010273992025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1346/2025
BIPUL CHANDRA DAS
S/O GHANA DAS
R/O UDAIPUR
P.O. AND P.S. MERAPANI
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP
ASSAM
2:M/S ARUNODOI ENTERPRISE
REPRESENTED BY PARTNER SRI MUKUT SARMA
R/O BORPABHOJAN GAON
P.O. AND P.S. BORPOTHAR
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM.
Advocate for : MR. B D GOSWAMI
Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 16.12.2025
Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner and Mr.
M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1,
State of Assam.
2. The instant application is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence
passed against the applicant-revision petitioner and for his release on bail.
3. The applicant as the revision petitioner has preferred the accompanying criminal
revision petition against a Judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Court of Sessions,
Golaghat ['the Appellate Court', for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 26/2024 whereby the
Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant-revision petitioner, has
affirmed a Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Dhansiri, Sarupathar ['the Trial Court', for short] in Complaint Petition no.
06/2022. By the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2024, the Trial Court after finding the
petitioner, who was arraigned as the accused, guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments [NI] Act, 1881, as amended, has convicted him and the applicant-
revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 [six] months and
to pay a fine of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent no. 2.
3. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner has submitted that
the complainant instituted the complaint petition in the name of M/s Arunodoi Enterprise
wherein he is stated to be a partner. It is submitted that the complainant did not exhibit any
Authorisation Letter to institute the complaint in the name of M/s Arunodoi Enterprise during
the course of the trial. He has further submitted that in the dishonoured cheque, the
signature of the applicant-revision petitioner was not exhibited during the trial. The
complainant claimed that he deposited the cheque for collection at Borpathar Branch of SBI
whereas the cheque was, in fact, presented for collection in the Sarupathar Branch of the SBI
and the return memo was issued from the Sarupathar Branch of the SBI only.
4. The above submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant-revision petitioner have
been considered qua the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate
Court. The cheque so dishonoured was issued from the cheque book issued in favour of the
petitioner wherein his name was reflected. Further, the cheque was issued in the name of the
firm, M/s Arunodoi Enterprise and the complaint was instituted in the name of M/s Arunodoi
Enterprise wherein the complainant had projected himself as one of the partners. Rather than
presentation of cheque for a collection at a particular branch of the Bank, it is the collection
of the cheque amount or return of the cheque unpaid to the drawee, which is material. Prima
facie, presentation of a cheque like the dishoured cheque in the case in hand, which is
payable at per at all branches, is insignificant. The cheque was returned unpaid due to
insufficiency of the fund in the account of the applicant-revision petitioner.
5. From the Judgments of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, it is noticed that
M/s Arunodoi Enterprise used to deal in selling of diesel, petrol, lubricants, etc. and the
applicant-revision petitioner is a businessman, Government contractor and order supplier. A
number of documents reflecting transactions between the two sides were exhibited during
the trial. It further emerges that towards payment, the applicant-revision petitioner, as per
the testimony of the complainant, had paid sums of Rs. 58,57,556/- and Rs. 13,35,800/- on
two different occasions against a liability of Rs. 79,23,334.86. The cheque in question was
stated to be issued to discharge of a part of the balance amount due to the complainant firm.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the operation of
the impugned Judgment of the Appellate Court shall remain suspended subject to deposit of
20% of the fine amount to be paid by the applicant-revision petitioner within a period of 60
[sixty] days from today. It is further ordered that the applicant-revision petitioner shall be
allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The applicant-revision petitioner is to place the
deposit receipt immediately after expiry of 60 [sixty] days before this Court for continuation
of the interim order. Further order on the interim prayer would be made subject to placing a
copy of the receipt evidencing deposit of the afore-said amount before this Court after
expiring of 60 [sixty] days period.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
