Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2000 · Jharkhand High Court

Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath Roy, Advocate Mr. G.S. Prasad, A.P.P. Mr. C. Mukherjee, Advocate PRESENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ By Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 23.2.2000 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1998, whereby, the appeal filed against the Judgment and Order dated

13.11.1998, passed by Sri A. K. Shukla, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in complaint case No. C/1 453 of 1994 / T.R. No. 372 of 1998, convicting and sentencing the petitioner, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below with the modification in sentence. It may be stated that the petitioner was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’), and on hearing on the point of sentence, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 70,000/-, out of which Rs. 69,000/- was directed to be given to the complainant, Rs. 55,000/- being the due amount under the cheque in question and Rs. 14,000/- being the compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C., and the balance amount of Rs. 1000/- was directed to be deposited with State Treasury. In the event of non- payment of the fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo R.I. for one year. The appeal filed against the said Judgment and Order was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below, confirming the conviction and sentence of fine imposed -2- by the Trial Court, and directing that in default of making the payment of fine, the petitioner shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court below.

The case relates to bouncing of the cheque for Rs. 55,000/- which was issued by the petitioner in favour of complainant-opposite party No. 2, which had bounced upon presentation in the Bank. Thereafter, a notice was sent to the petitioner and when the cheque amount was not paid, the complaint petition was filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 2, and the petitioner was ultimately put to trial. It appears from the Judgment of the Trial Court below that upon perusal of the evidence brought on record by the parties, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, but he was acquitted for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a very short point and has submitted that the statutory notice under the Act was not given within the period prescribed by the Act, and accordingly, on this ground alone, the Judgments passed by both the Courts below are absolutely vitiated and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned counsels for the opposite parties have opposed the prayer and submitted that the notice was given to the petitioner well within the statutory period, as is apparent from the Judgments passed by the Courts below. It is also submitted that there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. -3-

After hearing learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that the point taken by learned counsel for the petitioner has been discussed in detail in the Judgment passed by learned Appellate Court below. It finds mentioned in the Judgment that cheque was dishonored on 3.10.1994 and memo of return was sent to the complainant by the concerned Bank on 4.10.1994. According to the complainant, memo was received by him on 7.10.1994. Advocate's notice was given by the complainant to the petitioner, which was dated 17.10.1994, and was sent through registered post on 19.10.1994. The Court below accordingly, came to the conclusion that even if it is taken that the complainant was informed about the dishonor of cheque on 4.10.1994 itself, the notice given to the petitioner was well within time.

In the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned Judgments worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 12th October 2012 N.A.F.R./R.Kr.