KRISHNENDU BANDHAPADHYAY Vs. KAUSIK DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this revision is to the concurrent findings of the learned Appellate Court whereby the order of conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence passed by the trial Court was affirmed. THE petitioner being the convict has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order impugned, mainly, on the following grounds :-

(2.) BEFORE the. points raised by the petitioner are taken up for discussion, it would be expedient to give short reference to the factual backdrop of the case for better appreciation of the entire matter.

(3.) MR. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the money allegedly borrowed was Rs. 1,10,000/- but the cheque in dispute was amounting to Rs. 1,14,555/-.This suggested clearly that the opposite party claimed interest on the principal which he could not do without having any license under The Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 Therefore, MR. Ganguly contended, the entire transaction being illegal, no- legally enforceable debt or liability was existed which the petitioner was supposed to discharge in view of the Explanation to the section 138 of the N. I. Act. In support of his contention , MR. Ganguly referred to a decision of Bombay High Court in Nanda v. Nandakishore, reported in (2010) 2 E.Cr.N. (BOM) 1459.