Gauhati High Court
Manik Ch. Das vs Chandan Kumar Dey on 7 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010099982024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.L.P./17/2024
MANIK CH. DAS
S/O LATE KEDAR CH. DAS,
R/O BIR CHILARAI PATH, GOALPARA TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- GOALPARA,
DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
CHANDAN KUMAR DEY
S/O LATE KANAILAL DEY,
R/O AMBARI AMOLAPATTI (NEAR KASHIMITRA POND), GOALPARA
TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- GOALPARA, DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, SAMIM RAHMAN,MR S A
BARBHUYAN,MR A W AMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS,MS SURAYA RAHMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A ROY, MR I HASSAN,MR. U. DUTTA
Linked Case :
MANIK CH DAS
VERSUS
CHANDAN KUMAR DEY
------------
Advocate for : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ
Advocate for : appearing for CHANDAN KUMAR DEY
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
07-02-2025
Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. I.
Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This application seeking leave to file appeal against acquittal has been filed,
under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the applicant,
Sri Manik Ch. Das.
3. The applicant is seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order
dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned CJM, Goalpara, in NI Case No. 6/2018,
whereby the respondent was acquitted of offence under Section 138 of NI Act
1881.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant
had filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the respondent, Shri
Chandan Kumar Dey in connection with dishonoured of Cheque No. 321451
dated 12.01.2018. The said complaint case was registered as NI Case No.
6/2018. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by judgment
and order dated 22.03.2024, the complaint case was dismissed and the
respondent was acquitted on the sole ground that the debt due to the present
applicant from the respondent was not legally enforceable. It was also held in
the impugned judgment that the cheque which was dishonoured was issued
beyond the period of limitation for recovery of the said debt.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is an
apparent error in the judgment which would shown that the learned CJM,
Page No.# 3/3
Goalpara had arrived at a perverse finding. He submits that though in the
impugned judgment itself, the learned CJM, Goalpara had observed that the
loan which was taken by the respondent was not legally enforceable beyond
20.04.2018 and the cheque in question was issued on 12.01.2018, which is
apparently before 20.04.2018, however, in spite of that, it was observed that
the cheque was issued beyond the period of limitation which is a perverse
finding. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks leave to file the connected appeal
against the impugned judgment of acquittal.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has objected to the
grant of leave on the ground that the cheque in question was issued in respect
of a debt which was not legally enforceable.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record.
8. It appears from record that it is an admitted position that the loan in
question was obtained by the respondent on 21.04.2015 and therefore, it would
have been legally enforceable till 20.04.2018. It also appears that the cheque in
question was issued by the respondent before the lapse of limitation period of 3
years, i.e., on 12.01.2018. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion
that, prima-facie, there appears to be perversity in the finding arrived at by the
Trial Court.
9. Hence, the leave sought for is granted and this application is allowed.
10. Let, the connected criminal appeal be registered and listed for admission
on 19.02.2025.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
