BALAI CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. LAXMIPRIYA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia, in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2017 wherein the learned Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in connection with Case No. 1133C/14 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Krishnagar by its judgment and order dated 15.02.2017 was pleased to hold the present petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to pay compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh fifty thousand) only, within 45 days and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years.

(3.) The genesis of the case was on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Laxmipriya Dey against the present petitioner Balai Chandra Mondal under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was alleged in the petition of complaint that the complainant and the accused were known to each other and had a good relation as such the complainant transferred her land in favour of the accused at a considerable price of Rs.10,00,000/- for which the accused issued cheque bearing no.041051 dated 24.02.2014 drawn on IDBI Bank, amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- in her favour. Complainant present the said cheque for encashment on 22.04.2014 with her banker, Bank of Baroda, Krishnagar, Nadia and the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund in the account of the accused person. The factum of dishonor was intimated by a Bank Memo dated 23.04.2014 and the complainant, thereafter, on 19.05.2014 served a demand notice through her lawyer by registered post with AD, thereby demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. The complainant alleged that in spite of the receipt of the demand notice the accused through his lawyer took a flimsy ground and failed to make any payment within the statutory period as prescribed under the Act. The complainant, thereafter, proceeded to file the instant case before the learned court which was registered as complaint case no. 1133C/14 (subsequently re-numbered as T.R. No. 522/14).