Rahul Raj vs State Of Jharkhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2173 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          Cr. Revision No. 223 of 2012

           Rahul Raj                               ...      ...    Petitioner
                               Versus
         State of Jharkhand and Another         ...   ...     Opp. Parties
                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

         For the Petitioner         : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate
         For the Opp. Party         : None

                          Through Video Conferencing
07/02.07.2021

1. Heard, Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Ms. Mahua Palit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. In furtherance of his argument today, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments: - 2012 (1) JLJR 220;

2008 (2) JLJR 22 (SC);

2012 (1) JLJR 48; and 2011 (3) JLJR 311

4. He has submitted that the learned courts below have not properly appreciated the evidences on record and the presumption, that the cheque was drawn against a liability, has been duly rebutted by the accused in the light of preponderance of probability. He submits that the demand cheques were issued by the petitioner for the purposes of admission in Law College, but the same were misused by the complainant and there was no legal debt for which the cheques were issued. He has further submitted that even the timeline prescribed for filing a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been satisfied in the present case and the case itself was pre-matured. He submits that notice for cheque bouncing was issued on 17.02.2006 and the postal receipt has been exhibited, but there is no document to show the service of notice and accordingly, at best, the deemed service of notice could be taken as 18.03.2006, but the present case has been filed on 13.03.2006. He submits that even after deemed service of notice, the accused has time of 15 days to respond to the legal notice or to pay the same. He submits that in view of the aforesaid list of dates, the case itself was filed pre-matured and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned judgements of conviction and sentence do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction as they do not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

6. Arguments concluded.

7. Judgment is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul