Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Shekhar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 612 of 2012
With
I.A. No. 1710 of 2012
Chandra Shekhar Mandal,
Son of late Arjun Mandal, resident of Quarter No. 3267 Sector-12/B, P.O. +
Police Station -Sector-12, Bokaro, District Bokaro (Jharkhand)
... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Prabhu Dayal Keshri,
son of late Govind Sao, resident of village-Chouparan, P.O. + Police Station-
Chouparan, District-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
09/17.04.2021
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated
30.04.2012 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 194 of 2011, whereby the learned
appellate court confirmed the judgment of conviction and modified the
amount of fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- and directed the petitioner to
pay compensation of Rs.76,000/-.
The petitioner was convicted vide judgement dated 02.09.2011 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in C. Case No.
845 of 2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and pay fine of Rs.
10,000/-.
3. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 10.01.2009 accused took
Rs. 1,15,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of getting the
complainant's son admitted in Sagar Institute of Research and
Technology, Bhopal (Electronic Branch). The son of the accused was
already studying in the aforesaid institute and therefore the accused
approached the complainant at his residence at Chouparan and assured
the complainant that his son would get admission in the said institute
for which the complainant had to pay Rs. 1,15,000/- towards admission
fee, tuition fee, hostel charges etc. The complainant fell into this trap
and gave Rs. 1,15,000/- to the accused. The accused and his son Rajesh
Kumar gave a money receipt to the complainant and also entered into
an agreement with the complainant. Later, the accused failed to get
admission of the complainant's son in the said institute. After the
pressure given by the complainant and other common friends, accused
returned Rs. 39,000/- to the complainant on 27.04.09 and for the rest
amount gave a cheque of Rs. 76,000/- drawn on S.B.I. Bokaro, Branch.
However, when the complainant deposited the said cheque in his
account at Bank of India, Chouparan Branch, it was dishonoured on
21.05.09 due to reason "Payment stopped by the drawer." Thereafter,
the complainant gave a demand notice to the accused through his
advocate by registered post but the accused in his reply to the said
notice refused to return the cheque amount to the accused. Hence, the
complaint case was filed.
4. The learned courts below gave consistent findings and convicted the
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881. The learned appellate court recorded the findings as
follows: -
"11. Thus, from the oral and documentary evidence available
on record it is quite clear that the cheque dated 27.04.09 was presented
in the bank well within period of its validity. It has also been clearly
proved that complainant gave a demand notice to the accused within
30 days of the receipt of the information regarding the dishonour of
the cheque. The complainant gave 15 days' time to the accused to
return the cheque amount but the accused refused to do so. Thus, all
the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act have
been fully established by the complainant.
12. The accused, as stated above has not adduced any evidence
in his defence. He has taken plea that the complainant had forced him
to issue the said cheque. According to the accused the cheque was
issued by him due to coercion and pressure put on him by the
complainant and his friends. In my view, this is not a ground on which
the accused shall be absolved of his liability. In his reply to the demand
notice (Ext. '6') the accused has clearly admitted that the cheque in
question was issued by him. This accused in his statement recorded
under Section 313 Cr. P.C. has further admitted that he had issued the
said cheque in favour of the complainant and had written to the bank
to stop its payment. U/s 139 of the N.I. Act there is always a
presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received
the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability. The accused had totally failed to rebut that presumption.
13. On the basis of evidence discussed above, I am of the
opinion that the complaint has been able to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubts."
5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter relates to
conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 and a joint compromise petition is on record
being I.A. No. 1710 of 2012 wherein it has been mentioned that
opposite party No. 2 has received the claim amount and he has no
grievance against the petitioner. Learned counsels jointly submit that
the present case may be disposed of in view of the compromise.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has
also submitted that he has no objection if the conviction, sentence as
well as compensation against the petitioner is set aside.
6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and
considering the fact that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 have
entered into compromise amongst themselves and the matter relates to
conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the present case is disposed of in view of the
compromise, and the order of conviction and sentence passed by
learned trial court in C. Case No.845 of 2009 as well as the order of
sentence and compensation imposed against the petitioner by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr.
Appeal No. 194 of 2011 is hereby set aside.
7. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby disposed of.
I.A. No. 1710 of 2012 also stands disposed of.
8. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
9. Let the lower court records be sent back to the learned court below.
10.Let this order to communicated to the learned court below through
FAX.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Saurav
