Santosh kumar jha,@ Santosh Jha aged about 34 years s/o Dilip Kumar Jha resident v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sapan Mukharji @ Sapan Kumar Mukharji, S/o- Late
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 202 of 2019 Santosh kumar jha,@ Santosh Jha aged about 34 years s/o Dilip Kumar Jha resident of H no. 1334 Block No 4 Road No 3 Shashtri Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Kadma Town Jamshedpur District- East, Singhbhum Jharkhand. Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sapan Mukharji @ Sapan Kumar Mukharji, S/o- Late B.B Mukharji, R/o H No 18 Road No 4 Ram Nagar Kadma P.S.-Sonari, Town Jamshedpur District- East Singhbhum. … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Legal Reasoning
--- : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party-State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP --- 16/25.04.2024 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.08.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 314 of 2016 (T.R. No. 343 of 2018) by which the petitioner was convicted under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Ms. Shivani Jaluka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, under the instructions of Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate, has submitted that they have no instructions to argue the case and accordingly, appropriate order may be passed. She has submitted that after the order dated 17.06.2019 whereby an application seeking exemption from filing surrender certificate was allowed on the ground that the petitioner has settled the dispute with opposite party no. 2, the learned counsel for the petitioner has no further instruction. 3. From the perusal of order dated 17.06.2019, it appears that the petitioner was also directed to file supplementary affidavit containing the details of the amount paid by the petitioner to opposite party no. 2. But the said order has also not been complied and now the learned counsel for the petitioner has no instructions in the matter to argue the case. 4. The grounds for revision are quoted as under: "A) For that the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court whereby trial court judgment is affirmed & the Petitioner is held guilty of the offence under section 138 of the N.I Act suffers from material illegality & the appellate court as well as the trial court mis-appreciated the evidence on record & it also ignored the material evidence. B) For that the impugned Judgment is an outcome of conjectures & Surmises. C) For that the impugned Judgment is perverse to the material available on record. D) For that the allegation by the complainant that the petitioner has handed over a bogus cheque is not made out against the petitioner as the petitioner before issuance of the cheque shared his account details with the complainant in which it was found out that there is sufficient amount in the petitioner account. This shows that the intention of the petitioner to draw a cheque in favor of the complainant was not dishonest. E) For that the complainant has not mentioned the dates in the complaint with regard to the presentation of the cheque. It has been stated in the complaint that both cheques were presented together, but in cheques different dates has been mentioned. So if the latter dated cheque was presented first, it was bound to be dishonored. F) For that the learned lower court and the appellate court didn't took notice of the fact that the return memo of the bank does not bear nay signature of the bank officials and seal of the branch office. It is a necessary step to be taken by the bank so that the bank can be made acquainted with the fact that the same cheque has been dishonored. In absence of the seal and signature the genuiness of the return memo of the bank will always be questioned. G) For that the impugned judgment is bad on other grounds of law & fact which the petitioner shall raise at the time of argument." 5. This Court has gone through the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. The learned trial Court after scrutinizing materials on record and also considering the provisions of section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has recorded a clear finding that the petitioner had committed offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The findings of the learned trial Court in paragraphs 21 to 23 are quoted as under: "21. It is obvious from the scheme of sec 138 NIA, 1881 that each one of the ingredient flows from a document which evidences the existence of such an ingredient. The only other ingredient which is required to be proved to establish the commission of an offence under present section is that in spite of the demand notice referred above, the drawer of the cheque failed to make payment within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the demand notice. In the present case all the nine documentary evidences i.e, ex-1, 2, 2/1, 3, 4, 4/1, 5, 6 and 7 proves that two cheques of Rs 50,000 each were issued by the accused which were 2 dishonored by the bank on their presentation and even after receipt of the said notice the sum remained unpaid. 22. In the light of the exhibited documents on record in the present case and the witnesses brought before the court and in absence of any contra reliable and credible evidence by the accused the Court has come to the considered opinion that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 NIA, 1881. The court by virtue of Sec. 139 of N.I. Act, 1881, presumes that the complainant has been able to establish that cheques of 1,00,000/- were issued by him which were dishonored by the bank due to insufficiency of fund. And even after receipt of legal notice accused did not pay the cheque amount to the complainant. Accused has completely failed to rebut the presumption which is tilted in favour of complainant and against the accused given under section 139 NIA, 1881. 23. In the facts and circumstance as discussed above in detail and after considering the case of complaint in its totality, I am of the conclusion that complainant has successfully established the accusation levelled against the accused beyond the shadows of all reasonable doubts. In such circumstances, the sole accused, namely, Santosh Kumar Jha is found guilty U/S 138 N.I. Act, 1881 in the present case." 6. So far as the learned appellate Court is concerned, the learned appellate Court has also considered the materials on record and thereafter, has upheld the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court has also considered the argument of the petitioner while dismissing the appeal. 7. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts, this Court finds no illegality or perversity or any material irregularity in the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. The grounds raised in the memo of revision indicates that the petitioner is calling upon this Court to reappreciate the materials on record which is certainly not permissible in law under revisional jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision application which is hereby dismissed. 9. 10. Let a copy of this order be immediately communicated to the The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled. court concerned through ‘e-mail /FAX’ who is directed to take appropriate steps so that the petitioner serves the sentence/punishment imposed upon him by the learned Courts. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj 3 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)