TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated 13.6.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, in C.R. Case No. 146 of 2006 under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, where the petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00000/- to the complainant. 2. The fact of the case leading to this criminal revision is that the Opposite Party no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging inter alia, that the petitioner as a partner of Prasenjit Hardware had taken a loan of Rs. 6,15,676/- from him and the petitioner in discha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the year 2004 during August to September there was an overdrafts of Rs. 6,00000/- from his account and as he applied for loan, the Bank Manager requested him to deposit Rs. 4,00000/-. He has admitted that at the relevant time complainant was present in the room and he offered to accept a loan of Rs. 4,00000/- in order to deposit the same in the bank account of the accused petitioner. DW-1 also deposed that the complainant issued cheque bearing No. 259 of Rs. 4,00000/- in his favour. During his examination under section 313 of the Cr. P.C the petitioner admitted having issued a cheque of Rs. 4,00000/- in favour of the petitioner and that he received the Demand notice issued by the complainant/ opposite party No. 2. 4. Fulfilling ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loan transaction he had with the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2. It is further contended that the evidence of the petitioner and the documents produced by him were not considered for the purpose of dispelling the presumption against him drawn under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner has urged that learned Magistrate as well as the leaned Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence as he had issued blank cheques as security against original loan amount and to compensate against the bank interest that the complainant would suffer. It is urged by the petitioner that the judgment and order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 8. At the time of hearing of the revisional application private opposite party ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. Learned advocate argued that the judgment passed by learned Magistrate holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is bad in law as the petitioner had no liability to discharge. It is contended that the judgment passed by the Appellate Court is also not tenable as the learned Appellate Court failed to consider the evidence on record and the fact that the present petitioner did not issue the cheques in discharge of any liability. 10. Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the State argued that initially the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/- which was dishonoured and thereafter the petitioner issued two make cheques in favour of the Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 for Rs. 4,00,000/- and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate in the light of the evidence on record. Also perused the impugned judgment, the application for revision as well as the contents of the Trial Court Records consisting of the evidence adduced by P.W-1, D.W-1 and exhibited documents. It appears from the affidavit of the petitioner filed before the Court of learned Magistrate that he had a business transaction with the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and he had issued the impugned cheques in favour of opposite party no. 2. The presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act may be drawn in favour of the drawee of the cheques regarding their genuineness, correctness of the entries and drawing of the cheques for consideration. Section 139 of the N.I. Act gives rise to a yet ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plainant and he issued the cheque in favour of the complainant in discharge of his liability. Learned Magistrate while awarding compensation against the drawer of the cheques has not assigned any reason as to why he did not compensate the complainant to the extent of the total cheque amount. This issue has not been raised by the complainant as such I find no illegality in the judgment passed by learned Magistrate in respect of the sentence and compensation. The Appellate Court has also noticed this fact and pointed out that it is within the discretion of the trial to award compensation and no illegality have been committed due to the difference between the cheque amount and the compensation. In my considered view the judgment and ....