SOUMEN BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In connection with a prosecution of the petitioner and the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the Trial Court closed the defence evidence and fixed a date for hearing of argument. Such order being challenged in a criminal revision, the Sessions Court has also dismissed the same and upheld the order of the Trial Court, hence this criminal revision.

(2.) Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the materials on record.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant the opposite party no. 2 herein that the petitioner and opposite party no. 4 are the partners of opposite party no. 3, a partnership firm, viz., M/s. Flashforward Communication. It is the further case of the complainant that they in discharge of a legally enforceable debt issued a cheque for Rs. 7 lakhs to the complainant. When the said cheque was presented to its banker by the complainant/opposite party for encashment such cheque was returned unpaid due to insufficient fund. However, in spite of receipt of demand notice by the accused persons no payment was made. Accordingly, on August 22, 2007 the opposite party no. 2 herein instituted a case for offences punishable under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against them. It further appears that alleging delay in disposal of the aforesaid complaint case in violation of the mandate of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant, the opposite party no. 2 herein earlier moved C.R.R. No. 2835 of 2009, when this Honble High Court by an order passed on August 10, 2009 directed the Learned Court below to make all endeavours to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date of communication of the order. Thereafter, the defence examined as many as four witnesses in support of its case. Then again on November 18, 2009 after examination of D.W. 4 was over defence moved an application before the Trial Court for further examination of D.W. 2. However, the Learned Magistrate rejected the said application and such order being challenged in a criminal revision, the petitioner lost there.