Prabhat Lal vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. H. C. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the

opposite party no. 2.

This application is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2006 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions

Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.06.2006 passed in C/1

Case No. 279 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 60,000 has been

affirmed. Â

The prosecution story as per the complaint case instituted by the opposite party no. 2 is to the effect that on the request of the petitioner for getting

his son admitted in engineering college, an amount of Rs. 54,000/- was given by the complainant to the petitioner. The petitioner having failed to

return the amount has ultimately issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 54,000/- on 11.10.2002 which on being presented to the bank was dishonoured

on 10.02.2003 due to stop payment. A legal notice was sent to the petitioner which was returned with an endorsement refused and ultimately the

complainant had no other option, but to prefer a complaint petition being C/1 Case No. 279 of 2003 which was inquired into and subsequent thereto,

cognizance was taken under Section 138 of N. I. Act.

The substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner and thereafter trial proceeded. In course of trial, 3 witnesses were examined on

behalf of the complainant.

C.W. 1 â€" Amit Kumar Srivastava is the son of the complainant who has stated that on the request of the petitioner an amount of Rs. 54,000/-

was given by his father. He has further stated that when he failed to get admission, he had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 54,000/- which on

being presented to the bank was not honoured with an endorsement ‘stop payment’ and subsequent thereto a complaint case was instituted by

his father. C.W. 2 â€" Jogendra Kumar Srivastava is the complainant of the case who has supported his case in his evidence. This witness has

identified the cheque which had been issued by the petitioner which was marked as Exhibit 1. He has also identified the cheque return memo as

Exhibit 2 and the legal notice sent to the petitioner as Exhibit 3 and the registered letter with endorsement ‘refused’ as Exhibit 4. This witness

has categorically stated of having an amount of Rs. 54,000/- given to the petitioner and which was not returned which led the petitioner to issue a

cheque which subsequently did not get honoured and which led to institution of a complaint case against the petitioner. C.W. 3 â€" Hemant Sharma

is the bank employee of Federal Bank, Jamshedpur who has identified the cheque in question and has stated that the concerned cheque got

dishonoured with an endorsement ‘stop payment’.Â

Since the complainant has been able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence

under Section 138 of N. I. Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months as also to pay a compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. The

appeal preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2006 was also dismissed on 18.02.2008. After the petitioner preferred a

revision application before this Court and prayed for bail, the same was allowed on the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.

60,000/- which was imposed upon him as compensation by the learned trial court. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit from which it

appears that on 21.07.2008, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- has already been deposited before the learned court below.

Mr. H. C. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has stated that he is confining his argument only with respect to the sentence

imposed upon the petitioner considering the fact that the amount of compensation has already been deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial

court. Â

Since the prayer of the petitioner is limited only with respect to the sentence imposed and on consideration of the fact that an amount of Rs.

60,000/- has already been deposited before the learned trial court as also in view of the absence of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to

oppose the said prayer, while affirming the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the

period already undergone by him in custody.

The opposite party no. 2 is at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs. 60,000/- from the court below.

This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.

Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.Â

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the respective parties. Â