MADHUSUDAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is against an Order No. 12 dtd. 29/5/2019 in the Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2018 passed by the Learned Addl. District and Session Judge (F.T.C. No. I) at Calcutta confirming the order of conviction and sentence dtd. 30/1/2018 passed by the Learned 17th M.M. in case no. C-24 of 2006 under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, in which the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Five Lacs) to the complainant within two months I/D. suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The complaint case in a nut-shell is that:-

(3.) The defence case is that the Petitioner/accused person issued the disputed cheque which was post dated, for the purpose of security for future but not in discharge of any self existing debt or liability but was issued for liability of another person. Actually one Gopal Chandra Biswas contracted with the financer Bhagirath Samanta for purchase of land and construction and Bhagirath Samanta gave to Gopal Chandra Biswas a sum of Rs.1100000.00 and the land was purchased. Thereafter Gopal Chandra Biswas and other landowners approached the petitioner/accused person to take up the job of construction work of the building over the land and accordingly the accused invested huge amount and started construction and completed up to maximum level. In the mean time the dispute arose between Gopal Chandra Biswas and financer Bhagirath Samanta for the monetary issue. And the accused intervened in the matter and issued the cheque being no. 197890 dtd. 30/11/2005 drawn on UTI bank, Saltlake in favour of financer Bhagirath Samanta with instruction that cheque should be presented for encashment when the accused person gives consent or permission but will not present the same without any notice to the accused person. But the complainant under conspiracy used the said cheque and filed this false case.4. The petitioner states that he has explained all true facts and reason for issuance of cheques and its reason for dishonour before the trial court but Learned Court did not consider the submission of the petitioner/accused and giving the benefit of presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act 1881 convicted the petitioner and passed judgment/order which is nothing but full of errors and defective in the eye of law. 5. The petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence dtd. 30/1/2018 passed by the Learned 17th M.M. in connection with case no. C-24 of 2006, preferred one criminal revision, being Crl. Rev No. 125 of 2018. 6. The Learned Addl. District and Session Judge (F.T.C. No. I) at Calcutta on dtd. 29/5/2019 passed an order dismissing the revision application and affirmed the order of conviction. 7. Hence the revision. 8. The petitioner having not responded to the administrative notice, the learned legal aid counsel was appointed from the panel of the High Court Legal Service Committee. 9. In spite of due service of notice upon the opposite party/complainant there is no representation. 10. From the Judgment under revision, it is seen that the Learned Additional Session Judge has noted as follows:-