RAJESH SINGH Vs. PAPRIKA ELECTRONIC PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dtd. 29/11/2019 passed by the Learned Judge, Bench-1, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in Criminal Revision No.153 of 2017, affirming the Judgment and order dtd. 20/4/2017 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/4315 of 2012, wherein the petitioner had been convicted under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the court by way of detention inside the court room and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) year.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that the opposite party filed a complaint case against the petitioner before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was registered as Case No. C/4315 of 2012 and after taking cognizance the said case was transferred to the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Learned Trial Court') for trial and disposal of the case.

(3.) The case of the opposite party/complainant in brief is that the petitioner had a business transaction with the opposite party/complainant and in the said business transaction, an A/c payee cheque was issued to the opposite party for discharge of existing financial liabilities vide Cheque No. 042240 dtd. 24/11/2011 for Rs.5,00,000.00 (Five Lakhs) drawn on Bank of India, Raniganj Branch, District ' Burdwan and the said cheque was duly deposited by the opposite party with his Banker, State Bank of India, Park Street Branch, Kolkata within the validity period of the said cheque for encashment but the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'Drawer Signature Incomplete'. The said intimation was received by the opposite party through cheque return memo dtd. 18/1/2012. The opposite party then sent a demand notice dtd. 1/2/2012 through his Learned Advocate on 9/2/2012 and in spite of receiving the said notice, when the petitioner did not clear the payment, the opposite party filed the instant case.