CHANDI CHARAN SEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 2 is present .Learned Advocate representing the opposite party No. 1/State is also present. None, however, appears on behalf of the petitioner despite service of notice upon the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, even when this case is fixed for hearing today as a last chance. The matter is, therfore, taken up for hearing in the absence of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

(2.) By filing this application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner, Chandi Charan Sen, has come up before this Court seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 27.4.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 2nd Bench of City Sessions Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 44/97 affirming the order of conviction of the petitioner dated 27.2.97 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta in C. R. Case No. C/158/96 where by the learned trial Judge was pleased to pass an order sentencing the petitioner to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 3000/-, i. d. to undergo another one month's rigorous imprisonment which was, however, modified by the appellate Court to the period of three months' rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount of Rs. 3000/- was affirmed by the learned appellate Judge.

(3.) On going through the petition under reference it appears that the main attack against the judgment has been made on the ground of inherent legal defect of the "demand notice" whereby alleged demand was made for payment of the amount together with the interest @ 18% per annum till the payment of the sum of Rs. 69,000/- and accordingly, the petition was filed beyond the scope and principle of law as enjoined under section 138(b) of the N. I. Act. The second branch of attack as I find was with regard to the liability to discharge as enjoined in section 138 of the N. I. Act and according to the petitioner, this does not attract at all in this case as no criminal liability has ever been created thereby and as such according to the petitioner, there has been miscarriage of justice for which interference by this revisional Court is sought for.