Orissa High Court
Laxmidhar Bardhan vs Chittaranjan Jena .... Opposite Party on 19 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.575 of 2022
Laxmidhar Bardhan .... Petitioner
None
-Versus-
Chittaranjan Jena .... Opposite Party
Mr. P. Swain, Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
19.09.2025
Order No.
12. 1. None appears for the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the opposite
party.
3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2022 dated
29th October, 2022confirming the order of conviction and
sentence in ICC Case No.206 of 2019, whereby, he has been
directed to undergo a sentence of six months SI for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and to pay a sum of
Rs.3 lac towards compensation in terms of Section 357(3)
Cr.P.C. to be realized from him with a default sentence of SI
for two months on the grounds stated.
4. As per the pleading on record, the petitioner claimed
that there is nothing on record to show and disclose about the
purpose of the hand loan for an amount of Rs.2 lac which is not
proved by the opposite party. The further pleading is that there
is absence of a recoverable debt from the petitioner which is
essential to be established for an offence under Section 138 of
the NI Act and therefore, the impugned judgment in ICC Case
No.206 of 2019 confirmed in appeal by the learned court below
is liable to be interfered with and set aside.
5. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the opposite party, on
the other hand, submits that the impugned judgments of the
learned courts below are perfectly justified, inasmuch as, the
petitioner received a hand loan for an amount of Rs.2 lac and in
that connection, the alleged was issued by him and received by
the opposite party and ultimately, it stood dishonoured after
being produced before the Bank. It is further submitted that
issuance of the cheque is not in dispute. The claim of the
petitioner is that a blank cheque was handed over to the
opposite party. The contention is that the cheque having been
issued by the petitioner proved and established by the petitioner
before the court of 1st instance and marked as an exhibit and
also the intimation received from the Bank concerned, no
wrong or illegality has been committed to reach at a conclusion
regarding such issuance by the petitioner and it was towards a
lawful debt against him in view of the hand loan of Rs.2 lac.
The evidence during the trial in ICC Case No.206 of 2019, if
gone through, according to Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the
opposite party, if would show the default on the part of the
petitioner and him having issued the cheque but failed to refund
the amount and therefore, the order of conviction and
compensation has been awarded by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Nayagarh confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2022
deserves to be maintained.
6. The opposite party examined himself as P.W. 1 and
marked the cheque in question as Ext.1 and the signature of
the petitioner thereon as Ext.1/1. The other signature of the
petitioner on Ext.1 is also proved by P.W.1 as Ext.1/2. In so
far as the return memo received by the opposite party is
concerned, it is marked as Ext.2 dated 2nd July, 2019. On
perusal of the LCR, the Court finds that a pleader notice was
issued by the opposite party and the same is proved as Ext.3.
The service of the notice on the petitioner is also proved by
Ext.4 and its delivery vide Ext.5, a copy of the postal tracking
report. No evidence is adduced from the side of the petitioner.
When the cheque was allegedly issued by the petitioner, a
presumption would arise in terms of Section 139 of the NI Act
to the effect that it has been drawn for a consideration duly
endorsed and accepted by the parties. In the instant case, the
petitioner having issued the alleged cheque marked as Ext.1
with his signature thereon duly proved by P.W.1, namely,
opposite party, it has to be held that the same was drawn and
issued for a consideration. A presumption arises about
existence of lawful debt since it was the petitioner, who has
drawn Ext.1 and received by the opposite party. The learned
courts below have taken judicial notice of the said aspect
about the presumption attached and in absence of any
evidence in rebuttal from the side of the petitioner arrived at a
conclusion that an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is
proved and established.
7. Furthermore, the court of 1st instance has taken
cognizance of the decision in N. Unnukrishnan Vrs. T.K.
Ramankutty and another 2006 Cri. L. J. 4700 (Ker),
wherein, it has been held and concluded that when a cheque is
admittedly signed by the drawer irrespective of the fact that
the same had been filled up by another person putting the date
and amount, such drawer cannot be absolved of the liability
under Section 138 of the NI Act and therefore, even assuming
for the sake of argument that the petitioner had handed over a
blank cheque to the opposite party without being signed and
was presented and debt is found to be in existence and it was
for and in respect of a return for the hand loan received from
the opposite party, in absence of any such evidence to the
contrary, a statutory presumption is to apply, which is what
has been held in the decision (supra). Considering the
evidence in its entirety, in absence of any plausible
explanation being furnished by the petitioner before the
learned court below except denying issuance and receipt of a
notice in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P,C.,
the Court reaches at a conclusion that the cheque i.e. Ext.1
was drawn and received by the opposite party from the
petitioner towards enforcement of a lawful debt or liability
which is one of the essential conditions for an offence under
Section 138 of the NI Act. Hence, the final conclusion of the
Court is that the learned courts below did not commit any
illegality in holding the petitioner liable for an offence under
Section 138 of the NI Act and therefore, no justifiable reason
lies to defer therefrom. In other words, the impugned
judgment in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2022 does not suffer
from any infirmity.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
