SUSHIL KR. MANDAL Vs. PROBODH KUMAR DIHINGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dated 05.11.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2002 acquitting the appellant and setting aside the judgment dated 29.04.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati convicting the accused appellant under Section 138 of NI Act in complaint Case No. 2508C/1999 is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 of NI Act. The case came up for trial before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati. The learned Trial Court found the accused respondent guilty under Section 138 of NI Act and convicted him accordingly under the said Section. Against the judgment, the respondent preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and acquitted the respondent accused (the appellant in the appeal before Sessions Judge). Hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge totally misconceived the law and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that return of cheque for difference of signatures would not attract Section 138 of the NI Act. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat and Others, 2013 1 Crimes(SC) 101, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-