Orissa High Court
Kalia Panigrahi vs Ramakanta Rath .... Opposite Party on 9 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 669 of 2023
Kalia Panigrahi .... Petitioner
M/s. S.K. Dash, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
Ramakanta Rath .... Opposite Party
M/s. K. Tripathy, Advocate & Associates
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
09.09.2025
Order No.
08 1. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Dr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
correctness of the impugned judgment passed in connection
with Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2023 as at Annexure-2
confirming the decision of learned JMFC (Transport),
Berhampur in I.C.C. Case No. 581 of 2017, whereby, he has
been directed to pay fine/compensation of Rs. 3,25 lac to the
opposite party and in default to undergo S.I. for three months.
3. A written note of submission is filed and received from
the petitioner today in Court and the same is taken on record.
4. Gone through the impugned judgments as at
Annexures-1 and 2.
5. In fact, the opposite party filed the complaint in I.C.C
Case No. 581 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act')
alleging therein the petitioner to have issued a cheque for an
amount of Rs. 2.4 lac to him and the same stood dishonoured
and returned back with an endorsement of the banker
'insufficient fund'. Consequent upon the cheque having
bounced back, the opposite party filed the complaint and it has
led to the passing of the impugned judgment in I.C.C. Case No.
581 of 2017 directing the opposite party to pay compensation
with a default sentence. Following the judgment of the court of
1st instance as per Annexure-1, the petitioner carried the matter
in appeal and it was finally disposed of by the learned Sessions
Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur vide Annexure-2 confirming the
compensation awarded in favour of the opposite party.
6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to
the written note of submission pleads that the ground advanced
by the petitioner was disbelieved by both the learned courts
below. The contention is that the alleged cheque was in the
hands of one Ashok Kumar Palo and thereafter, it was received
by the opposite party and then, was misutilized and presented to
the banker and admittedly the same could not be honoured and
returned back with an endorsement as to insufficiency of fund.
Under the above circumstances and in absence of any legal
liability and without the knowledge of the petitioner since the
alleged cheque was received through said Ashok Kumar Palo
and ultimately, landed in the hands of the opposite party, who
presented for encashment, a case under Section 138 N.I.Act is
not made out but the learned courts below arrived at a
conclusion to the contrary and held the petitioner to be
responsible and accordingly, directed him to pay the
fine/compensation of Rs. 3.25 lac to the opposite party and
therefore, the impugned judgments at Annexures-1 & 2 are
liable to set at naught.
7. On the contrary, Dr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the
opposite party submits that the cheque was received by the
opposite party and it was in connection with the liability that
the petitioner issued the same and the plea that it was with one
Ashok Kumar Palo and subsequently, misutilized was rejected
by both the learned courts below. The further submission is that
the petitioner received money from the opposite party and
misappropriated the same and in that connection, the alleged
cheque was issued for an amount of Rs. 2.4 lac but it stood
dishonoured. As regards the alleged debt and liability to be
discharged, the petitioner having issued the cheque to the
opposite party and the amount therein was not returned within
the time stipulated despite a notice, the learned courts below
did not err or commit any illegality in awarding the
fine/compensation with a default sentence.
8. Gone through a copy of the deposition of the petitioner
examined as D.W. 1 before the court of 1st instance as produced
by Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for him. Though, such
a plea was advanced to the effect that the cheque was with said
Ashok Kumar Palo and ultimately, in the hands of the opposite
party, in absence of any basis for the same, as it appears, the
learned courts below declined to accept the same and in the
considered view of the Court, it was rightly so. As it is further
made to appear that the petitioner was to pay back the amount
received from the opposite party and the cheque in question
was handed over and it failed to be honoured, the learned court
below rightly awarded the fine/compensation and therefore, the
Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Such other
evidence led by the respective parties are brought to the Court
but the conclusion of the learned courts below do not appear to
be erroneous and awarding fine/compensation against the
petitioner is perfectly justified. Law is well settled that an
offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act depends on existence of a
debt or liability to be discharged which in the instant case is
shown to have been proved and established. The burden of
proof lies on the drawer of the cheque, who is to satisfy the
Court as to absence of any such debt or liability and in the case
at hand, considering the materials on record the Court finds that
the same could not be discharged satisfactorily, hence, it has
resulted in the impugned judgment at Annexure-1 and
confirmed in appeal by the learned court below.
9. As regards the fine/compensation amount of Rs. 3.25
lac, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the same is on the higher side and hence to be reduced. A
strong objection to the same is received from Dr. Tripathy,
learned counsel for the opposite party. The alleged cheque is of
the year 2017 for an amount of Rs.2.4 lac. Considering the fact
that the complaint is of the year 2023 and regard being had to
the plea advanced from the side of opposite party that the
money was originally paid and received by the petitioner in the
year 2013, the Court taking into account rate of interest
applicable is of the view that an amount of Rs. 3 lac would
instead be reasonable and justified towards the
fine/compensation payable to the opposite party maintaining
the default sentence.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered.
11. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of. As
a necessary corollary, the impugned judgment at Annexure-2 in
Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2023 stands modified to the extent
as aforesaid with a direction to the petitioner to pay
fine/compensation of Rs. 3 lac with the default sentence in
place at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further
directed that in case of default in payment of the
fine/compensation within the above stipulated period, it shall
carry a penal interest @ 8% on the sum awarded.
12. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
