DILLIP KUMAR SWAIN Vs. ANURADHA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by filing this revision, has assailed the judgment dated 9.3.2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No.3/69 of 2009.

(2.) Facts of the case of the complainant is that accused Jayanta Kumar Mohanty came and represented before the complainant to have been engaged in real estate business. Then after discussion, he entered into an agreement with the complainant for development of her land. She then executed a deed of power of attorney appointing said accused Jayanta Kumar Mohanty for development and sale of the land. It is stated that in order to discharge the liability, accused Jayanta Kumar Mohanty issued a cheque worth Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. That cheque being presented by the complainant in the Bank for collection of the amount in her account, bounced back and stood dishonoured. This fact being communicated by the complainant to accused Jayanta Kumar Mohanty, he requested to return the cheque. Accepting his request, that cheque was returned to him. Accused Jayanta Kumar Mohanty then gave another cheque being no.635283 dated 22.12.2005 drawn on State Bank of India worth Rs.6,30,000/- Said cheque had been issued by this accused Dillip Kumar Swain (petitioner of this revision) under his signature. The complainant then deposited the said cheque in the Bank for obtaining the money covered. Surprisingly, in the account of accused Dillip Kumar Swain, the funds available was insufficient to meet the demand covered under the cheque. So, there was no collection of money and the cheque was returned as dishonoured. The complainant then sent notice to Jayanta Kumar Mohanty and this accused Dillip Kumar Swain by registered post with AD intimating them the fact that the cheque issued by accused Dillip Kumar Swain has been dishonoured and demanding payment of said amount. No response being received from any quarter, the complaint has been lodged alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act by both accused persons, i.e, Jayanta Kumar Mohanty and this accused Dillip Kumar Swain. The plea of the accused persons is that of complete denial and false implication.

(3.) From the side of the complainant, three witnesses have been examined. This accused Dillip Kumar Swain has examined himself as D.W.1. The complainant when has proved the cheque in question and other connected documents as regards its dishonour, the copy of the demand notice as well as the postal receipt etc; from the side of this accused Dillip Kumar Swain, his evidence affidavit and the signature thereon have been unnecessarily marked as Ext.A and Ext.A/1 respectively even though the same is part of evidence.