SANKAR DAS Vs. ALAK DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing this criminal revision petition, petitioner Sri Sankar Das has challenged the judgment dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial 9District, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No 15(1) of 2017 setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.02.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. CR(NI) 49 of 2016 convicting respondent No.1 namely Alak Dey for having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 and sentencing him to RI for 1 year and a fine of Rs.4 lakhs with default stipulation.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that present petitioner being complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (NI Act, for short) in the court of the CJM, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur on 23.06.2016 alleging, inter alia, that accused Alak Dey [Respondent No.1 herein] borrowed a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs from the petitioner in cash on 10.03.2016 to discharge his personal obligations. While borrowing the said amount of money, the respondent had undertaken that he would return the loan within a period of 01 month by 10.04.2016. The accused respondent also issued a cheque bearing No.157066 dated 10.03.2016 of a sum of Rs.2 lakhs drawn on Tripura Gramin Bank branch at Udaipur against his account No.8070012405601 in favour of the petitioner to secure the said debt. The petitioner deposited the said cheque with his bank for crediting the said amount to his account No.31328439774 in the SBI Garji branch. But on 24.05.2016 it was intimated to him by his bank that the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient fund in the account of the accused respondent No.1.

(3.) A demand notice was then issued by the petitioner to respondent No.1 through his lawyer demanding payment of Rs.2 lakhs within 15 days and such notice was sent to his known residential address through post registered with AD. Despite receiving the notice, accused respondent Alak Dey did not refund the money to the petitioner.