Pradeep Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1264 Jhar

IN THE       HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Cr. Revision No. 1004 of 2016
                                   -------

Pradeep Kumar Mahto @ Pradeep Kumar Mahato ...... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Kanhaiya Ohdar ..... .... Opp. Parties

--------

CORAM :          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                                   --------
For the Petitioner          : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the State               : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P

For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate

--------

07/ Dated 22.03.2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioner Pradeep Kumar Mahto @ Pradeep Kumar Mahato has filed this revision application against the Judgment dated 01.10.2015 passed by Sri Diwakar Pandey, learned A.J.C-IV, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.183/2014 whereby and wherein the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2014 passed by Sri S.B.Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.2742/2009, whereby and wherein, the learned Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and thereby, sentenced him to undergo S.I for six months and further directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within 30 days and in default of payment of compensation thereof, he shall further undergo S.I for six months.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the complaint case filed by the opposite party No.2, alleging therein that he was the friend of the petitioner and he had given Rs.4,14,600/- to the petitioner by way of friendly loan. On 30.10.2009, the petitioner had issued an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,14,600/-, payable at Central Bank of India, Angara Branch, Ranchi being Cheque No.003855. The cheque was placed for encashment on the same day i.e., well within the stipulated period as provided under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

It further appears that the opposite party No.2 was informed by Bank Return Memo on 17.11.2009 that the cheque presented by him could not be encashed due to insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. The opposite party No.2 gave a lawyer's notice to the petitioner on 26.11.2009 demanding the payment of the bounced amount within fifteen days. Notice was also given within the stipulated period of time. The petitioner after the receipt of notice gave an undertaking in writing that he will repay the loan amount by 15.12.2010. When the petitioner did not pay the demanded amount, present case was filed on 21.01.2010.

The complainant/opposite party No.2 has examined himself as C.W.1. He has supported the case as made out in the complaint petition and stated that he had given a friendly loan of Rs.4,14,600/- to the petitioner and for repayment of the same, on 30.10.2009, the petitioner had issued a cheque to him, payable at Central Bank of India, Angra Branch, Ranchi. The cheque, in question, has been adduced in evidence as Exhibit-1. It further appears that the said cheque was placed for encashment before the bank on the same day, but the bank informed the opposite party No.2 that the cheque could not be cashed for want of sufficient fund. The bank return memo dated 17.11.2009 has also been adduced in evidence which is Exhibit-2. On 26.11.2009, lawyer's notice was given to the petitioner demanding the bounced amount from the petitioner. The complainant has adduced the lawyer's notice in evidence which was marked as Exhibit-3. Postal receipt is Exhibit-4 and the undertaking of the petitioner is Exhibit-5.

The complainant has been cross-examined at length. In his cross examination, he has stated that apart from this case, no case has been instituted against the petitioner by him. He has further submitted that the lawyer's notice was given through his lawyer and after receiving the lawyer's notice, the petitioner had promised that he will transfer the portion of land belonging to him near Fertilizer Factory at Angara He has denied the suggestion that the petitioner had paid Rupees Two Lakhs to him for part satisfaction of the loan amount.

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.4,14,600/- from the opposite party No.2 and to repay the said amount, the cheque was issued by the petitioner. The cheque was placed for encashment but it could not be cashed for want of sufficient fund in the account of this petitioner. Accordingly, notice was given to the petitioner within time and when the petitioner did not return the amount as promised, this case has also been filed within time.

There is nothing on record to show that the cheque, in question, was not issued against any legally enforceable debt.

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to the concurrent finding that the petitioner was guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

I do not find any merit in this revision application. Accordingly, this revision application is hereby, dismissed.

(Ambuj Nath, J.)