SUDARSHAN PODDAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHSND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision application against the judgment dated 11 -6-2008 passed in criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2007 passed by Shri uday Narayan Mishra, 2nd Additional district and Sessions "judge, Chaibasa whereby the judgment of conviction and sentences dated 20-2-2007 passed by Shri Nirupam kumar Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class chaibasa, in Chaibasa Sadar P. S. Case no. 90 of 2001/g. R. No. 485 of 2001/ T. R. No. 191 of 2007 arising out of C/l Case no. 72 of 2001 by which the trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of N. I. Act and sentenced him S. I. for one year and further pay compensation of rs. 1,50,009/- has been affirmed.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that the complainant opposite party No. 2 Rajeev Khirwal filed a Complaint Petition in the Court of c. J. M. Chaibasa and the same was registered as C/1 Case No. 72 of 2001. It is alleged in the said complaint petition that the complainant and the accused petitioner are very good friends. The Complainant is a well reputed business man and the accused petitioner is also is a dealer of L. M. L. Vespa. On 27-4-2001 the accused petitioner came to the informant and requested him to give him a family loan of rupees 75000/ -. The complainant advanced the same and kept a promissory note executed by the accused. The accused failed to refund the said amount within a month as per their understanding and after giving reminder by the complainant for the several time, the accused issued a cheque of rupees 75000/- bearing cheque no. 163488 dated 15-6-2001 drawn on singhbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank, chaibasa Branch and requested the complainant not to present the chaque immediately as he will arrange the cash within the short period. As the accused did not repay the amount, the complainant after waiting till 11-10-2001, he presented the said chaque No. 12. 10. 2001 to the Canara Bank but the same was returned with an endorsement of "fund insufficient". In this way, the petitioner defrauded the complainant opposite party No. 2 deliberately with mala fide intention.

(3.) THE trial Court convicted the petitioner after full trial for the charge under Section 138 of N. I. Act and sentenced him to undergo S. I. for one year and to pay compensation rupees 1,50,000/- to the complainant. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal. After hearing the parties at length, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the aforesaid conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court.