SUMAN CHATTERJEE Vs. LINA ROY TAPPADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.7.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rourkela in I.C.C. Case No. 247 of 2009 convicting the present petitioner for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act) which has been upheld by the appellate court with the modification in sentence vide judgment dated 2.5.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2011.

(2.) It appears that in this revision the earlier counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner took repeated adjournments for hearing of the revision which has since been admitted. But subsequently, Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel and associates entered appearance for the petitioner and filed vakalatnama with the consent of the previous counsel appearing for the petitioner, made the submission to take the matter to any other date as he was appearing recently. Considering their submission, the case was adjourned to 28.7.2015. Thereafter, though the case was taken up on 31.07.2015, but none appeared for the petitioner on that day. The learned counsel for the opposite party was present. Considering the fact that this is a revision against the conviction and the revision has already been admitted and as such it cannot be dismissed for non prosecution and the counsel for the petitioner who has recently made appearance also not kept the commitment given in this case. I have perused the record and heard the counsel for the opposite party for disposal of this revision and disposed of the revision on merit vide the order passed as follows:

(3.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the opposite party-complainant and the petitioner had acquaintances with each other. The petitioner being an LIC and Postal agent persuaded the opposite party-complainant to invest a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- either in LIC or Postal Schemes. Accordingly, the opposite party-complainant gave a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the petitioner for investment of the same in any of the LIC schemes or in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) of the Postal department, but the petitioner did neither. He also did no refund the said amount despite demands. On 25.10.2008, the petitioner in order to discharge his liability issued a cheque bearing No.436448 dated 25.10.2008 (Ext.I) drawn on HDFC Bank, Bisra Road, Rourkela and on 4.2.2009 the opposite party-complainant deposited the said Cheque in her Bank i.e. Bank of India for encashment, but as per cheque return memo (Ext.3), the HDFC bank informed her bankers that the account had been closed and subsequently, her banker returned the cheque to her. Thereafter, the opposite party complainant issued a notice dated 25.2 2009 (Ext. 4) to the petitioner asking him to make payment of the aforesaid amount, but in vain. Therefore, finding no other way, the complainant-opposite party filed a complaint in the court of learned S.D.J.M, Pan posh at Rourkela to proceed against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner faced his trial and the trial court in season over the matter recorded the judgment and order as stated earlier. The appeal against the same also failed. Hence, this revision.