Sanjeev Kumar … … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ajai Pradhan
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 509 of 2022 ----- Sanjeev Kumar … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ajai Pradhan ----- … …. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate : Ms. Priya Shrestha, S.P.P. : M/s A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Leena Shakti & Supriya Dayal, Advocates ----- C.A.V. ON 21.06.2024 PRONOUNCED ON 05.07.2024 1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act read with Sections 417 and 418 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for one year simple imprisonment and a compensation of Rs. 30 Lakh has been awarded. 2. As per the complaint case, the complainant had worked as a partner with the petitioner accused-Sanjeev Kumar in different works allotted by PHED Department in the district of Godda. In the said work, he incurred huge expenditure for which the petitioner had given him a cheque of Rs. 24 Lakh drawn on State Bank of India, Godda which was dishonoured as the account had been closed. 3. As per the complaint the list of dates leading up to the case is as under: 04.04.2011- Cheque drawn in the name of the complainant. 05.04.2011- Cheque presented for payment in the SBI Branch Dhamsain, 25.04.2011- Dishonored with an endorsement of account having been closed on 11.02.2011. 27.04.2011- Legal notice sent by registered post which was served to the petitioner accused. 20.06.2011- Complaint was filed after the lapse of 15 days notice. 4. The statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded. Complainant examined altogether five witnesses, and relevant documents were adduced into evidence and marked as Ext. 1 to 5. 1 5. Learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2015 convicted and sentenced the petitioner accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act with a direction to pay compensation amount of Rs.30 Lakh. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2015/21 of
Legal Reasoning
2015. Learned Appellate Court remanded the matter back to learned Trial Court for taking additional evidence on the point whether the cheque so issued was enforceable as a legal debt or liability or not and secondly for information regarding the loss of cheque. 7. After the said remand, learned Trial Court in C.C. No. 364 of 2011 again convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and a compensation of Rs. 30 lakh was awarded with a sentence for 1 ½ years. 8. 9. The judgment passed by learned Trial Court has been affirmed in appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 14/2017 which is under challenge in this criminal revision. In the instant revision it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of conviction suffers from several infirmities which make it fit for setting aside. It has not been disputed that the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 were partner at some point of time. It is, however, contended that taking advantage of the trust, opposite party no. 2 was somehow successful in getting the cheque book of the petitioner without his knowledge, which has been used in the present case by committing forgery as would be evident from the face of cheque itself. 10. The cheque book went missing on 05.12.2009 when the petitioner had gone to Basukinath temple to offer his prayer in the temple and there his cheque book along with owner book and insurance paper etc. had gone missing, regarding which he reported the matter to Jarmundi Police Station where station diary entry No. 85 was made on 05.12.2009 (Ext. B and B/1). The cheque book that was missing was used in drawing the cheque purported to be in the name of the petitioner. The said cheque has been marked as Ext. 2 and 2/1 and bears altogether six signatures of the drawer (petitioner) and on its face they do not resemble each other. 11. Further, there was no occasion to draw the cheque against the account which was closed way back on 11.02.2011, however, the said cheque is shown to have been drawn on 05.04.2011. In view of the fact that the cheque book was lost and account was closed, therefore, there was no transaction in the Bank from 2 04.11.2009 to 11.02.2011 on the date when the account was closed. 12. On the service of notice, it is submitted that the petitioner has not received the service as the same was in incomplete address where he never resided as S. Kumar, Dumka. The postal receipt has been received and adduced into evidence and marked as Ext. 1/1. It is argued that in para 5 of his deposition, the complainant has stated that he cannot write and read English, however, his signature has been made on the back side of cheque in English. It is also argued on the point of legal enforceable debt that neither in the complaint nor in the legal notice there has been mention about actual debt that was due to the petitioner against which the cheque was issued. Reliance is placed on 2016 SCC Online Kerala 13455, para 13 and 14. 13. It is further submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 arose and finally on 02.02.2011 when he withdrew the power of attorney by writing letter to the Executive Engineer which has been adduced into evidence and marked as Ext. Z for identification. The petitioner examined himself as DW2 and has deposed in para 4 of his deposition that he had communicated to the Executive Engineer revoking the power of attorney of opposite party no. 2. There has not been any cross-examination on this point and this statement of the witnesses remains un-rebutted. By referring to this, it is argued that once the dispute had arisen between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2, there was no reason as to why the cheque should have been drawn for such a huge amount and that too, against an account that has been closed earlier.