FORTUNE MULTI TRADER Vs. EVERETT TRAVEL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Everett Travel Service lodged one complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act being no-C-129 of 1999 against 1) M/s. Multi traders Ltd & 2) Bharat Qumar Nandi (hereinafter referred to as petitioners) in the court of Ld. 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The petitioners were found guilty and accordingly an order of conviction was recorded. The petitioners preferred appeals separately challenging the order of conviction and sentence. The appeal preferred by Bharat Qumar Nandi was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2006 while the appeal preferred by the M/s. Fortune Multi-traders Ltd. was registered as Criminal Appeal No.-12 of 2006. The Ltd. Additional Sessions Judge FT court no. 5, Calcutta disposed of both the appeals separately and had taken concurrent findings with slight modification in respect of sentence. The petitioners Bharat Qumar Nandy and M/s. Multi traders Ltd. challenged the legality validity and propriety of the judgment of the Ld. Additional court by filing these two revision applications CRR-2482 of 2007 and CRR-2616 of 2007, respectively. Since, the revision applications are arising out of one judgment and points involved are same, both the applications are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) This court is not oblivious of fact that ordinarily, High court should not upset a concurrent findings in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. It is trite law that only in the exceptional cases where gross violation of fundamental principle of law has occasioned & resulted in miscarriage of justice, High court may make good the wrong but, in doing so, it is not supposed to act as appellate court by way of re-appreciating the evidence which once has been done by the trial court and re appreciated by the appellate court. However, in this case, then petitioner has raised some questions of law and, therefore, it is duty bound to answer the questions although, it appears, the Ld. Appellate answered all of them with reasons.

(3.) There are some admitted facts, such as, [a] there was business transaction between the parties; [b] that a bill was raised by the O.P. amounting to Rs. 2,83,605/-; [c] that a cheque of Rs. 2,83,605/- was issued by the petitioner in favour of the. O.P.; [d] that said cheque was presented by the O.P. before its banker; [e] that the cheque was returned because of "payment stopped by the drawer'; [f] that a demand notice was served on the petitioner and; [g] the petitioner did not make the payment within the time stipulated.