MEGHNATH SAIKAI Vs. XINMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGALITY and validity of the appellate judgment and order dated 25. 4. 2007 passed in Case Nos. 2867 (C)/2000; 2868 (C)/2000 and 2809 (c)/2000 thereby affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court in Case nos. 17, 18 and 19/2004 is the subject-matter of challenge in this batch of revision petitions. The impugned judgment having been passed analogously and the learned counsel having been agreed for disposal by a common judgment, these revision petitions are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G. P. Bhowmik. learned counsel for the accused/petitioner and Mr. A. Bora, learned counsel who enters appearance on behalf of the complainant/respondent.

(3.) THE complainant/respondent is a proprietorial firm and authorized dealer of BPL telecom Ltd. , Products for the North East region. During the course of business transaction, the accused petitioner being liable to pay certain amount to the complainant, the petitioner issued three different cheques from his existing account of the State Bank of India, Nagaon Branch on different dates i. e. on 15. 6. 2000 for Rs. 15,000, 20. 7. 2000 for rs. 15,000 and on 25. 7. 2000 for Rs. 12, 257 only. The cheques were drawn in the name of the complainant M/s. Xinmin. The aforesaid cheques being presented in the Bank were dishonoured by the Bank. Thereupon complying with the necessary requirements relating to issuance of prior demand notice under Section 138 of the NI Act, these complaint cases were filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act.