CHHANDA DEBBARMA Vs. KESHAB BANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel along with Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel along with Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent. This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in C.R. No. 2922 of 2003 on 29-10-2004 where by learned trial Court had allowed the prosecution prayer to re-examine the claimant to prove two documents.

(2.) The brief facts, according to the accused-petitioner are that the complainant-respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and a case was registered as C. R. No. 2922 of 2003 wherein learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued notice upon the accused-petitioner to appear before the Court on 27-9-2003, pursuant to which, the accused-petitioner appeared and was enlarged on bail however subsequently charge was framed. However, in the examination under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. the complainant-respondent has stated that he has served a notice on 30th July, 2003 by registered post, which was received by the accused-petitioner on 31st July, 2003 and since money was not paid up to 31st August, 2003 therefore he has filed the above case. The complainant has also asserted that the cheques submitted to the Bank on 30th June, 2003 were returned for want of money. It appears that the complainant-respondent got examined himself to prove deposit of the cheques. As contended in para 3 of the Criminal Revision petition, that in the cross-examination the complainant has indicated that "it is not a fact that on 30-7-03, 1 issued notice to the accused demanding the money aforesaid or that it was received by her on 31-7-2003. It is not a fact that the demand notice for repayment of the money was actually sent to the accused on 20-8-03 or that the date was inserted therein as 30-7-03".

(3.) PW-2 Uttam Kr. Das and PW-3 Sudhir Sutradhar gave evidence supporting the claim of the complainant-respondent.