Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 1814 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 8 January, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010182012018




                                                                   2025:GAU-AS:312

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

                                Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./305/2018

            PRADIP SARKAR
            S/O. LT. KSHITISH CHANDRA SARKAR, R/O. LACHIT BAZAAR, A.T. ROAD,
            P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
            REP. BY PP, ASSAM.

            2:RAKESH CHATURVEDI

             S/O. PRATAP NARAYAN CHATURVEDI
             R/O. TOWKAK TEA ESTATE
             P.O. AND P.S. SONARI
             DIST. SIVASAGAR
             ASSAM-785690

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S HAQUE, MS A BARUAH,MR. M DEKA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR B SHARMA (R2),MR S SHARMA (R2)




                                          BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
                                   ORDER

08.01.2025

1. None appears for the petitioner on call. Heard Mr. B Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. P Barthakur, learned Additional Public Page No.# 2/4

Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No. 1.

2. The present criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside and quashing judgment dated 10.07.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2017 passed in CR case No. 358/2008 under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881.

3. The brief fact of the case of petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint case before the learned CJM, Jorhat, which was registered as CR case No. 358/2008 under Section 142 read with Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 alleging that the cheque bearing No. 154329 drawn on Union Bank of India, Silpukhuri, Jorhat Branch for amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- against lawful due of the respondent No. 2 was returned unpaid for insufficiency of fund.

4. The petitioner herein after receipt of summon appeared before the learned trial court and contested the proceeding. The complainant adduced four witnesses and exhibited as many as 8 documents including the cheque, the cheque deposit slip etc.

5. The petitioner as accused defended the case not only by cross-examining the witnesses of the complainant but also by leading defence witnesses through DW1 and DW2. DW1 was the accused himself.

6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court below by its judgment dated 14.02.2017 found the petitioner guilty of commission of offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,60,000/- and on payment of fine by the accused the same was to be given to the complainant as compensation.

7. After meticulously dealing with the testimonies of the witnesses and the exhibits, the learned trial court below concluded that the complainant has been able to establish that on 10.03.2008, the accused issued the cheque bearing No. Page No.# 3/4

154329 in discharge of his lawful liability and that such cheque was dishonoured on its presentation by the bank of the accused for the reason of insufficiency of fund in the account of the accused. It was also concluded that the demand notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act was duly served upon the accused on 27.03.2008.

8. The defence took a stand that the cheque in question was taken by the complainant forcibly from him and the complainant threatened him not to lodge any case or else to face dire consequences. Though the accused tried to establish such defence through the DW1 and DW2, the learned court below discarded such evidence primarily for the reason that the accused has failed to discharge the presumption drawn against it inasmuch as through the evidence of DW2, the transaction between accused and the complainant was further established.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 07/2017 and the said appeal was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court under its judgment and order dated 10.07.2018. The learned Sessions Judge re-appreciated not only the evidences but also considered in details the findings arrived at by the learned trial court below and after meticulous examination of the aforesaid material and after re-appreciation of the evidences concluded that the prosecution has clearly proved a case under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused/ appellant beyond doubt.

10. There is no doubt in the mind of this court that the object of revision power of this court is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. Such power can be exercised where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is non-compliance of provision of law, finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

Page No.# 4/4

11. It is equally well settled that a revisional jurisdiction of High Court should not be exercised in a routine manner. 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 must find a place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding.

12. In the touchstone of aforesaid principle of law, this court has also gone through the judgments and the material available on record. After perusal of the material, this court is in total agreement with the findings recorded by both the learned courts below inasmuch as in the considered opinion of this court such conclusion and determination made are based on sound reasoning. In the considered opinion of this court, the learned courts below had duly appreciated the evidence on record and the conclusion arrived on the basis of such appreciation of evidence. This court cannot be term such decision to be decision, which could not have been arrived on the basis of evidence available on record. This court has also not found anything as regard any patent defect or jurisdiction of law. There is also noting to suggest any non-compliance of any provision of law.

13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. LCR be returned back.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant