SILAPARI SHETHY SHANKAR RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises from the judgment dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2010 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh, Rourkela in I.C.C. No.461 of 2007 (Tr.No.5953/09). The opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela arraigning the petitioner as an accused for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, hereinafter called as ' the NI Act'). Having faced the trial, he has been convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with payment of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the opposite party no.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused, though had filed the above noted appeal, the same has not yielded any fruitful result in his favour. Hence, the revision.

(2.) The case of the complainant (opposite party no.2) is that on 27.1.2006, the accused had taken a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him to meet his urgent need as regards the education of his children with an assurance of its return within a short time. It is further stated that though on 23.8.2006, the petitioner again took a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- promising to return the total amount within a period of next six months, the accused did not pay the amount in time and also thereafter when the complainant demanded the repayment. It is stated that on 25.6.2007, the accused issued two cheques of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant for discharge of said debt in clearing his liability. The cheques, being presented on that very day with the Bank for collection, those bounced back being dishonoured for insufficiency of the funds in the account of the accused. The complainant then sent a demand notice by registered post with AD accused which did not return. Having waited for quite some time thereafter, finding no such response from the accused, he lodged the complaint. The trial court, on analysis of evidence on record and upon consideration of the defence taken by the accused that three blank cheques having been issued by him as security, those have been utilized by making the inflated demand in charging the interest and without taking into account the cash payment of Rs.75,000/- as not believable, has found the accused to have committed the offence under section 138 of the NI Act. Accordingly, he has been sentenced and directed to pay compensation, as aforesaid.

(3.) None appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called for hearing. I have heard learned counsel for the opposite party. The judgments of the courts below have been perused.