Tripura High Court
Sri Rahul Majumder vs Sri Nandalal Bhowmik on 9 April, 2025
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
Criminal Revision Petition No.22 of 2025
Sri Rahul Majumder, S/O. late Ratan Majumder, R/O. Barpathari, P.O.
Barpathari, Sub-Division- Belonia, District- South Tripura.
...... Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
1. Sri Nandalal Bhowmik, S/O. late Chitta Ranjan Bhowmik, R/O. Kalashi,
Baikhora, P.O. Kalashi, P.S. Baikhora, District- South Tripura.
2. The State of Tripura.
...... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Ms. Sutapa Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
=O=R=D=E=R=
09/04/2025
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman learned senior counsel assisted by
Ms. Sutapa Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard
Mr. Rajib Saha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State.
[2] By the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2025 in Criminal
Appeal No.23 of 2022, the learned In-charge Additional Sessions Judge,
South Tripura, Belonia has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura,
Belonia in NI No.08 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022 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.50,000/- along with the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. On
failure to pay such compensation, petitioner shall be subjected to simple
imprisonment (SI) for a period of six months.
[3] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the complainant has failed to establish that the cheque was
issued by the accused-petitioner herein to discharge a legal debt or liability
which is a necessary ingredient of Section 139 of the NI Act. The judgment
suffers from misappreciation of the material evidence. Therefore, the same
may be set aside.
[4] Mr. Rajib Saha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
opposed the prayer. He submits that all the five ingredients constituting the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act has been duly established. Issuance
of cheque by the petitioner-accused is not in dispute. In terms of Section 139
of the NI Act, there is a presumption, unless contrary is proved, that the
holder of a cheque received the cheque, for the discharge, in whole or in
part, of any debt or other liability. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has
duly appreciated that the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section
138 of the NI Act has been fulfilled as per both oral and documentary
evidence. The cheque bearing No.419422 dated 29.01.2022 for an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on SBI Belonia Branch was issued by the accused in
discharge of legal debt and liability and on presentation by the complainant
the Bank has returned the cheque for the reason 'insufficient fund'.
Thereafter, on 10.02.2022 the statutory notice through registered post was
issued. After receiving the Advocate's notice, the accused did not pay the
cheque amount. The complaint was filed within the period of limitation
thereafter. Therefore, all the five ingredients of the offence have been duly
satisfied. The learned Appellate Court has also scrutinized the evidence on
record and rightly refused to interfere as no grounds were made out.
[5] I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials placed from record. In order to bring
home the guilt of an accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, the following
ingredients are required to be established:
(a) Cheque was drawn by the drawer on an account maintained by
him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to the
complainant.
(b) The cheque was issued for payment to discharge a legally
enforceable debt or other liability, in whole or in part.
(c) The said cheque was returned unpaid by the bank.
(d) The cheque was presented to the bank within a period of three
months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period
of its validity whichever is earlier.
(e) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque as the case
may be made a demand for payment of the said amount by giving
notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the
receipt of information from the bank.
(f) The drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment of the
said amount to the payee within 15 days of receipt of the said
notice.
[6] Before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the complainant
had been able to establish all the five ingredients constituting the offence
under Section 138 of the NI Act. Petitioner did not dispute the issuance of
cheque rather admitted his signatures on the cheque which raises a
presumption under Section 118 read with Section 139 of the NI Act in
favour of the complainant. The accused-petitioner has not been able to rebut
the presumption by any cogent evidence. The presentation of the cheque in
the bank, its return with the endorsement 'insufficient fund' vide memo
dated 29.01.2022 [Exbt.P-3/PW-1], the issuance of the demand notice dated
10.02.2022 [Exbt.P-4/PW-1] and failure of the petitioner-accused to make
the payment within 15 days of receipt of demand are all established during
trial. Based on the evidence produced by the complainant and the statement
of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C where his simple case was of
pleading innocence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner
relying upon certain decisions rendered by the Apex Court, such as, in case
of Kumar Exports versus Sharma Carpets, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 519
for the offences alleged. The learned Trial Court instead of sentencing the
accused for any term of imprisonment, only directed him to pay fine of
Rs.50,000/- along with the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and on failure to
pay to suffer default sentence.
[7] The learned Appellate Court has duly considered the
submission of the appellant in the light of the material evidence placed from
record. The appellant-petitioner could not dislodge the presumption attached
to the cheque issued by him in favour of the complainant that it was in lieu
of discharge of any debt or liability. Taking all the circumstances together
the learned Appellate Court did not find any error in the impugned
judgment.
[8] On consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court does not find
any error in the impugned judgment or any illegality, impropriety or
irregularity in conduct of proceedings which warrant interference in
revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
[9] Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH) CJ
DIPESH DEB Digitally signed by DIPESH DEB
Date: 2025.04.10 16:57:37 +05'30'
