Jharkhand High Court
Srikant Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 611 of 2016
Srikant Thakur ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Daya Nand Mishra ... ... Opp. Parties
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. P. D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, Advocate
---
11/06.09.2023
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed this revision application against the
judgment and order dated 02.03.2016, passed by Sri. Peeyush
Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur in
Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2012, whereby and wherein, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur, upheld the judgment of
conviction but modified the order of sentence dated 09.01.2012,
passed by Sri Taufique Ahmad, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.2910 of 2010, holding the
petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and
thereby, sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year. He was further
directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- to the opposite party
No.2.
The learned Appellate Court modified the order of sentence and
directed the petitioner to undergo S.I. for six months but upheld the
order of payment of compensation Rs.3,20,000/- to the opposite party
No.2.
3. The case of the opposite party No.2 is that the petitioner
Srikant Thakur had taken a friendly loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from him.
On 19.06.2010, he issued a cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- for re-payment
of loan taken from opposite party No.2 vide cheque No.558968
drawn on ICICI Bank, Jamshedpur. On 16.08.2010 the opposite party
No.2 placed the cheque for encashment, but it was returned with
endorsement that the account was already closed on 09.11.2008.
Lawyer's notice was given to the petitioner on 19.08.2010, when the
petitioner did not pay the loan amount, the present case was filed.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution has adduced both oral
and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as
the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding
regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
5. The opposite party No.2 Dyanand Mishra has been examined
as C.W.1. He has supported the case as made out in complaint
petition.He has stated that in January, 2009, the petitioner has
borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of friendly loan, against the
repayment of the loan amount he had issued a cheque of
Rs.3,00,000/- on 19.06.2010 vide cheque No.558968 duly drawn by
ICICI Bank, Jamshedpur. When the cheque was presented before
ICICI Bank on 16.08.2010, it was returned with the endorsement that
it could not be honoured by the banker of the petitioner because the
account of the petitioner was already closed. Lawyer's notice was
given to the petitioner to repay the aforesaid amount, but petitioner
did not comply with request made in the lawyer's notice.
Accordingly, this case has been instituted. This witness has been
cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination he has stated that
Rs.3,00,000/- was given to the petitioner in presence of Vinay
Kumar. He has further stated that the aforesaid amount was given in
cash to the petitioner. He has proved the cheque in question which is
Exhibit-1, Bank returned memo is Exhibit-2 and lawyer's notice is
Exhibit-3.
6. From perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the
prosecution, it transpires that cheque No.558968 (Exhibit-1) of
Rs.3,00,000/- was issued on 19.06.2010 in the name of the opposite
party No.2.
From perusal of the Bank return memo which is Exhibit-2, it
transpires that the cheque was returned uncashed with an
endorsement that account of the petitioner was closed. It further
transpires that lawyer's notice was given to the petitioner on
19.08.2010 informing him that his cheque has bounced and requested
him to pay the amount to the opposite party No.2. Thereafter, this
case was filed on 15.09.2010.
7. From the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that the opposite party
No.2 has been able to prove that the petitioner had issued the
aforesaid cheque against the repayment of friendly loan. The cheque
was issued by the petitioner fully knowing that his account was
closed from before. Thereafter, he also did not respond to the legal
notice. The cheque was placed for encashment within stipulated
period. Notice was also given to the petitioner within stipulated
period and the present complaint case has also been filed within time.
8. From the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that the opposite
party No.2 has been able to prove its case against the petitioner for
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act beyond all reasonable
doubt. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate
Court have rightly come to a finding regarding the guilt of the
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
9. The criminal revision application is dismissed.
10. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
