KRISHAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.5.000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs in a trial held before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas. The said order of conviction and sentence was challenged In a Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court. South 24-Parganas at Alipore and in the said appeal her order of conviction although was confirmed but the sentence of fine was set aside and the amount of compensation has been reduced to Rs. 3.90.780/-. In this criminal revision the petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of the Appellate Court.

(2.) The trial of the petitioner was held on a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magsitrate, Alipore. South 24-Parganas in connection with the case No. C-914/2000, on the following allegations. "The accused Krishna Gupta the proprietor of Krishna Associates Private Limited, the petitioner herein purchased finished leather goods worth of Rs. 3,90,780/- from the company of the complainant and in discharge of such liability the accused issued 4 bearer cheques in favour of the company of the complainant. All the four cheques drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Ballygunge Branch were presented for encashment within its period of validity but the said cheques were returned unpaid with the remarks 'account closed'. Thereafter, the complainant within the statutory period issued a notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act demanding payment of the cheque amount from the accused but in spite of receipt of such demand notice no payment has been made."

(3.) In course of trial, the complainant examined three witnesses in support of his case. Although the accused during her examination under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressed her intention to examine witness in her defence but examined none in spite of sufficient opportunity given to her by the Trial Court.