Tripura High Court
Sri Joydeb Kar vs Tata Motors Finance Limited on 23 April, 2025
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
Criminal Revision Petition No.24 of 2025
Sri Joydeb Kar, son of late Nani Kar, resident of Gakulnagar, Rastar Matha,
P.O. Gakulnagar, P.S. Bishalgarh, District- West Tripura, Pin-799102.
...... Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
1. Tata Motors Finance Limited, No.87, H.G.B Road, Battala, Opposite
Madan Mohan Mandir, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala, District-
West Tripura.
2. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Department of Home,
Agartala, West Tripura.
...... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Debajit Biswas, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor,
Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
=O=R=D=E=R=
23/04/2025
Heard Mr. Debajit Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State.
[2] By the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2025 in Criminal
Appeal No.13 of 2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4,
Agartala, West Tripura has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Agartala, West Tripura in NI No.176 of 2014 dated 18.05.2023 whereby the
petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act, for short) and sentenced
him to pay fine of Rs.75,138/- i.e. the cheque amount. On failure to pay such
compensation, petitioner shall be subjected to simple imprisonment (SI) for
a period of six months.
[3] From perusal of the judgments of the learned Trial Court and
the materials placed from record, it is evident that all the necessary
ingredients under Section 138 of the NI Act were duly established by the
complainant. The original cheque was proved as [Ext.-1]. The cheque
dishonour memo was proved as [Ext.-2]. The postal receipt of service of
notice with postal report is enclosed as [Ext.-3 & 3/1]. Copy of letter dated
07.07.2014 addressed to the postal authority was proved as [Ext.-4]. The
reply of postal authority was proved as [Ext.4/1]. Copy of power of attorney
as [Ext.-5] and copy of the demand notice as [Ext.-6] were all proved by the
respondent-complainant, Sri Pritam Choudhury, the authorized person. The
cheque amount of Rs.75,138/- bearing No.898551 dated 10.06.2014 drawn
on Tripura Gramin Bank was issued for payment against the outstanding
loan amount.
[4] The complainant has been fighting the litigation since 2014.
The learned Appellate Court has considered all the materials placed during
trial and also dealt with the objection as regards the authorization of P.W.1
Sri Pritam Choudhury to prove the case of the complainant. P.W.1 was
authorized by the Chief Financial Manager of the Company to commence,
carry and to file any type of legal proceedings including but not limited to
filing of civil suits and complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on behalf
of the company. The learned Appellate Court also held that Sri Sabyasachi
Datta was not the complainant of the case but complainant was the company
itself and he was the Area Legal Manager being the authorized signatory
who signed the complaint as instrumentality of the juristic person.
[5] Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned
findings before the Appellate Court on the ground that the ingredients of the
offence under Section 138 were not duly established. Moreover, P.W.1 had
deposed as the authorized representative of the company on the basis of
Ext.-5 which was issued on 11.11.2021 after his deposition. However, no
such specific ground has been shown to be taken by the petitioner before the
learned Appellate Court though the Appellate Court has dealt with it at
paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment. As a matter of fact, Sri Sabyasachi
Datta had instituted the complaint on behalf of the respondent-complainant
company. The learned Trial Court though found all the ingredients of the
offence made out but has restricted the sentence to payment of fine of
Rs.75,138/- only i.e. the cheque amount under dishonour instead of
imposing any further compensation.
[6] Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
prayer and submits that there is no infirmity or irregularities in the judgment
of the learned Trial Court. The instant revision petition may, therefore, be
dismissed.
[7] I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the relevant materials placed from record. The
complainant has been fighting this litigation for the last 11 years. Upon
consideration of the facts and circumstances and the materials placed from
record, this Court does not find any error or procedural irregularities in the
impugned judgment calling for any interference. The ingredients of the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been duly established by
adducing the relevant documents as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 6. Petitioner has not
been able to rebut the presumption attached to the instrument i.e. cheque as
per Section 139 of the Act. The plea regarding the deposition by PW1 on
behalf of the respondent company has also been duly dealt by the learned
Appellate Court.
[8] The instant criminal revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH) CJ
DIPESH DEB Digitally signed by DIPESH DEB
Date: 2025.04.28 16:04:09 +05'30'
