HRUSIKESH BEHERA Vs. SAHEBRAM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has directed against the judgment dtd. 25/8/2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in Crl. Appeal No. 05 of 2018. The appellate court by the said judgment while affirming the finding recorded by the trial court fastening the guilt upon the petitioner (accused) for commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, called as "the N.I. Act") has confirmed the order of sentence imposed on him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,20,000.00 to the opposite party-complainant in default to undergo S.I. for one month in I.C.C. No. 54 of 2016.

(2.) Case of the complainant in short is that accused had availed a friendly loan of Rs.2,00,000.00 from him on dtd. 20/2/2015 for meeting the expenses for the marriage of his daughter and having assured to pay the said amount had entered into an agreement and issued a cheque worth of Rs.2,00,000.00 drawn on State Bank of India, Jharsuguda Branch. The cheque being deposited by the complainant in his account with Utkal Gramya Bank, Jharsuguda on 23/2/2016 in obedience to the instruction of the accused, the same bounced back being dishonoured. The complainant on issuing the notice demanding the payment of cheque amount from the accused in terms of proviso (a) to Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act when did not get any response, filed the complaint. The accused took the plea of complete denial and false implication.

(3.) The trial court having gone through the evidence let in by the parties as also the documents admitted in evidence on behalf of the complainant has found the complainant to have established his case that the accused had drawn the cheque in question in the account maintained by him for payment of amount to the complainant for discharge of debt and liability and that having been dishonoured and remaining unpaid the accused had been found to have committed offence under sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court for the purpose in view of evidence on record proceeding to draw the statutory presumption available under 118 read with Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act has found the accused to have failed to rebut the presumption either through the evidence let in by him or by showing any such material in the evidence of the complainant.