The High Court
Case Details
Cr. Revision No.476 of 2016 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.476 of 2016 ---------- Shambhu Shankar Guru … Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amit Kumar … Opp. Parties ---------- CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ---------- For the Petitioner For the State For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Akriti Shree, Amicus Curiae : Mr. B.N.Ojha, A.P.P C.A.V On 27.01.2023 Pronounced On : 24.06.2023 --------- Heard the parties. The petitioner Shambhu Shankar Guru has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 21.01.2016 passed by Sri Krishna Kumar, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.129 of 2015, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner –III, Ranchi dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2015, passed by Smt. Nitasha Barla, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 355 of 2012, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and thereby, sentencing him to undergo R.I for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.10,50,400/- to the opposite party No.2. The present case was instituted on the basis of complaint case filed by the opposite party No.2 Amit Kumar, alleging therein that he and his brother had entered into an agreement for purchase of 20 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No.644, Plot No.1344 of Mouza-Boreya from the petitioner. Against the aforesaid agreement, Rs.10,40,000/- were given to the petitioner on various dates by way of cash and cheque. However, some litigation arose and sale deed could not be executed. The petitioner had issued a cheque to return the consideration amount. The cheque was placed for encashment but were returned by the bank for want of insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. Lawyer’s notice was given to the petitioner demanding the consideration amount, Cr. Revision No.476 of 2016 - 2 - informing him that the cheque issued by him had bounced. When the petitioner did not return the amount within the stipulated period, the present complaint case was filed. In order to prove its case, the complainant had adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner had also adduced evidence in support of his case. On the basis of the evidence available on record, both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have come to the concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. The complainant opposite party no.2, Amit Kumar has been examined as C.W.1. He has stated that he and his younger brother Pradip Kumar had entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 06.08.2010 for purchase of 20 decimals of land @ Rs.1,10,000/- per decimal. The land was situated at village Boreya, appertaining to Khata No.644, Plot No.1344. The consideration amount of Rs.10,40,000/- was given to the petitioner but the petitioner did not execute the sale deed and issued a cheque of Rs.10,40,000/- in the name of opposite party No.2. The cheque of Rs.10,40,000/- were given on 08.12.2011. He has proved this cheque in evidence which is Exhibit-4. He has further stated that this cheque was deposited in the bank on 22.12.2011. He has proved the bank deposit receipt which is Exhibit-5. He has stated that the cheque was returned by the Bank Returned Memo dated 26.12.2011, informing him that the cheque could not be en-cashed for want of sufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. The Bank Return Memo is Exhibit-7. He has further stated that the lawyer’s notice was given to the petitioner, informing him that the cheque issued by him had bounced and to return Rs.10,40,000/- to him within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. This lawyer’s notice has been marked as Exhibit-8 and the receipt of the registry receipt of the lawyer’s notice is Exhibit-9. He has stated that the petitioner did not return the bounced amount and thereafter, the present case has been filed. He has also proved the agreement for sale and purchase of the land which is Exhibit-3, showing that Rs.10,40,000/- was given to the petitioner as a consideration amount for purchase of the land in question. The petitioner has adduced oral evidence. Ram Das Oraon D.W.1 has stated that the cheque of Rs.10,40,000/- was issued by the petitioner Cr. Revision No.476 of 2016 - 3 - under stress and duress. He has stated that even after issuance of cheque, the petitioner had returned the bounced amount in cash. In his cross examination, he has stated that he is not aware as to what was the amount of money for which cheque was issued. He has also stated that he is not aware whether one cheque was issued or several cheques were issued by the petitioner. Sunuwa Lohra, D.W.2 has stated that six persons had come on 08.12.2011 at the house of the petitioner, stating that he had issued cheque of Rs.10,40,000/- which had bounced and thereafter the petitioner had again issued cheque under stress and duress. Shambhu Shankar Guru, the petitioner has examined himself as D.W.3. He has stated that he had issued the cheque, in question. He had admitted that there was an agreement between the parties for sale of 20 decimals of land @ 1,10,000/- per decimal. He has also admitted that he had received Rs.10,40,000/- as the consideration amount and also for constructing a boundary wall around the land in question. He has also stated that he was the Power of Attorney Holder of the land, in question and the owner of the land did not execute the sale deed. He had demanded the money from him but he did not return the said amount. He has admitted that he had issued cheque in question as security against the money given by the opposite party No.2 to him. He has further stated that after receiving the legal notice, he had returned the bounced amount but there is no receipt of this transaction. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he was the Power of Attorney Holder of the land, for which, he had entered into an agreement with the opposite party No.2 to sale 20 decimals of land @ Rs.1,10,000/- per decimal. This Power of Attorney has been proved by the opposite party No.2, which is Exhibit-2. It is also admitted case of the petitioner that the land owner did not execute the sale deed, against which, he had issued a cheque in the name of the opposite party No.2 on 08.12.2011. The opposite party No.2 had deposited the said cheque in the State Bank of India, RMCC Branch, Bariatu Ranchi on 22.12.2011, i.e., within the stipulated period. The cheque was returned through Bank Return Memo, stating that it could not be honored for want of sufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. Legal notice was given on 11.01.2012 by the Cr. Revision No.476 of 2016 - 4 - opposite party No.2, i.e., also within the stipulated period. The petitioner had admitted that he had received legal notice, though it is the case of the petitioner that he had returned the amount after the receipt of the legal notice but there is no documentary evidence in support of his contention. This present complaint case was filed on 24.01.2012, i.e., within the stipulated period as envisaged by the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is evident from the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence that the cheque, in question, was issued by the petitioner against legally enforceable debt, though it is the case of the petitioner that he had issued a cheque under duress, but it is a fact that the cheque was issued against the consideration amount which was given to him by the opposite party No.2 for purchase of land but the petitioner did not execute the sale deed. The petitioner has claimed that he has returned the amount after the receipt of legal notice, but, there is nothing on record in support of this contention. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the opposite party No.2 has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the petitioner had issued a cheque which was bounced for want of insufficient fund in his account and the cheque was issued against the legally enforceable debt. The petitioner did not return the bounced amount, even after the receipt of legal notice. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly come to the concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The sentence passed by the learned Court below and the compensation amount directed to be paid to the opposite party No. 2 does not require any interference. This revision application is dismissed.
Decision
Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of. Before parting, I will like to record my appreciation for Ms. Akriti Shree, Amicus Curiae who has appeared on behalf of petitioner. The Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to her by way of remuneration for the service rendered by her in this case. BS/- (Ambuj Nath, J.)