Smt. Rita Bose vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3976 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                              Cr. Rev. No. 151 of 2009

                   Smt. Rita Bose, daughter of Ashok Bose, Secretary, Sahyogi
                   Mahila Bikas Kendra, resident of Near L.I.C. Building retired
                   colony, Chakradharpur, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District
                   - Singhbhum West                     ...     ...     Petitioner
                                       Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Balkrishna Prasad Sinha, son of Arjun Prasad Sinha, resident
                   of Mohalla Pandit Hata, Ward No.2, P.O. & P.S.
                   Chakradharpur, District - Singhbhum West.
                                             ...      ...       Opposite Parties
                                       ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Samir Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.2: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

---

11/25.10.2021 Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Samir Ranjan, Advocate.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 02.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.74/08, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 14.07.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Porahat at Chaibasa in Complaint Case No.17/07 (T.R. No.355 of 2008) for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was dismissed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months and was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,425/- in three equal monthly installments. The instalment was also fixed by the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and there was a default clause in connection with payment of compensation for simple imprisonment of further one month.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the only point involved in the present case is that the debt has not been proved.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the findings recorded in the trial court's judgment on the point of debt is a well-reasoned judgment, based on materials on record and accordingly, no interference is called for in the conviction and sentence of the petitioner in revisional jurisdiction. He also submits that the basic ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been fulfilled.

5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in connection with bouncing of cheque dated 07.06.2007 issued for a sum of Rs.1,60,425/- in favour of the complainant. The complaint was filed on 04.07.2007 and was registered as Complaint Case No. C1 Case No.17 of 2007 and cognizance was taken under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Having received the summons, the accused appeared in the court and particulars of the offence alleged against the accused was explained to her on 11.10.2007 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thereafter the trial commenced. In order to establish the charge, the complainant had examined altogether four witnesses including himself.

6. After considering the materials on record, the learned trial court has recorded that C.W.3, the complainant, has categorically stated in his evidence that he had advanced a loan of Rs.1,60,425/- to the petitioner. On 10.10.2006, a sum of Rs.20,000/-; on 19.10.06, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and on 07.11.2006, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was received by the petitioner and she had promised to return the same within one month, but she failed to refund the amount within one month. Thereafter, she issued the aforesaid cheque of Rs.1,60,425/- in his favour. This witness has also stated that on 07.06.2007, said

cheque was presented by him for encashment which was dishonored with a return memo indicating "insufficient fund". Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the accused demanding the amount. The accused received the legal notice and sent her reply praying for six months' time to pay the amount. This witness has also stated that she ultimately did not pay the amount within the stipulated time as per the Act and accordingly, he filed the complaint case. This witness has been thoroughly cross examined from the side of the defence.

7. So far as other witnesses are concerned, they have also fully supported the evidence of the complainant and they have also been cross-examined.

8. The petitioner was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and had denied the fact that the loan of Rs.1,60,425/- was taken by her from the complainant.

9. The learned trial court recorded that on earlier occasion, the petitioner has admitted receiving of loan amount from the complainant in writing and referred to Ext. 3 and 3/1. The petitioner had stated in her reply to the legal notice that she had taken a loan of Rs.1,60,425/- from the complainant and held that the loan stood admitted from the reply to the legal notice itself.

10. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the debt was not established, is devoid of any merits in view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial court itself.

11. This Court finds that the basic ingredients for conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stood satisfied and the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner by a well-reasoned judgment and has sentenced the petitioner accordingly.

12. So far as the appellate court is concerned, the appellate court also considered the evidence on record and recorded its

finding at para 13 of the impugned judgment which reads as follows:

"13. After having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that in the Court below, the complainant has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts that the cheque was issued by the accused in his favour, which has been marked Exhibit - 1, which was issued in discharge of the loan taken by the accused/appellant from the complainant. The required notice was also issued in favour of the complainant, which has been proved as Exhibit - 2 and the acknowledgement of the notice has also been marked Exhibit - 4. Exhibit 3 and 3/1 are the signatures of the accused/appellant on the reply to the notice given by the complainant and no suggestion was given to any of the complainant witnesses that the cheque was never issued by the accused/appellant or that the signatures on the exhibits are not that of the accused/appellant. Rather, the suggestion was given by the defence to CW-1 Arjun Prasad Sinha and CW - 2 Ajit Kumar that the complainant had forcibly got the cheque issued in his favour from the accused, even though the accused had told him that sufficient money was not in her account, whereupon, the complainant had said that he would withdraw the money after sufficient amount was deposited in the account, which was denied by these witnesses. This apart, CW - 4 Ganesh Lamay, who is the Branch Manager of the Bank, has fully proved the fact that the accused/appellant had the Bank A/c in his Bank and the cheque (Exhibit - 1) was issued by her and that it was dishonored due to insufficient fund in the account. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has fully established the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality whatsoever in finding the appellant guilty for the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act."

13. There are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below that the cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, marked as Exhibit - 1, which was issued in discharge of the loan taken by the petitioner from the complainant. There are concurrent findings that all the basic ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been satisfied in the present case. There being no illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgments, the present criminal revision is dismissed.

14. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.

15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

16. Let the lower courts record be sent back to the learned court below.

17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX/E-mail.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav