Dismissed

Sanjay Alias Rajan Srivastava v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC7 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./702/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal revision application challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court found no illegality in the lower courts' concurrent findings that the petitioner issued a cheque for a loan which bounced, the requisite notice was issued, and the complaint was filed within time.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Application dismissed; original conviction and sentence upheld.

Sanjay Alias Rajan Srivastava Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 702 of 2016

¶3

Sanjay @ Rajan Srivastava

¶4

... … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand 2. Dharmendra Kumar Narayan ... … Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶8

--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.2, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate

¶9

14/07.08.2023

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner Sanjay @ Rajan Srivastava has filed this criminal revision application against the judgment dated 12.04.2016, passed by Sri Raghubar Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No.143/2013, whereby and wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2013, passed by Sri A. K. Guria, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Daltonganj in Complaint Case No.908 of 2006, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I. for six months and also pay of Rs.2,55,000/- to the opposite party No.2.

¶12

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed by the opposite party No.2 namely Dharmendra Kumar Narayan stating therein that he had given a loan of Rs.2,55,000/- to the petitioner. For repayment of loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque of the aforesaid amount vide Cheque No.378881 dated 13.05.2006. The cheque in question was placed for encashment on 13.10.2006, but the same could not be encashed for want of sufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. Lawyer's notice was given to the petitioner on 26.10.2006 requesting him to return the aforesaid amount. The petitioner did not comply with the notice, accordingly, the present case was filed.

¶13

In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced oral and documentary evidence.

¶14

Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

¶15

-2-

¶16

The opposite party No.2 Dharmendra Kumar Narayan has been examined as C.W.-3. He has supported the allegation as made out in the complaint petition and has stated that he had given a loan of Rs.2,55,000/to the petitioner. For repayment of loan, petitioner had issued a cheque dated 13.05.2006 for the aforesaid amount. The cheque in question was placed for encashment on 13.10.2006. The cheque was returned stating that the cheque could not be encashed for want of sufficient fund. Subsequently, lawyer's notice was given on 26.10.2006, the petitioner did not respond to notice and as such, this case was filed.

¶17

The opposite party No.2 Dharmendra Kumar Narayan has been cross-examined at length. He has stated in his cross-examination that notice was issued by Sri Tripurari Tiwari, Advocate. He has proved the notice, which is Exhibit-3. He has stated that the petitioner has also filed a case under Sections 420/504 of the Indian Penal Code against him.

¶18

Other witnesses of the opposite party No.2 have supported the fact that the opposite party No.2 had given loan of Rs.2,55,000/- to the petitioner, against this petitioner has issued a cheque, which has bounced and petitioner did not respond to the lawyer's notice, subsequently this case was filed.

¶19

From perusal of the documentary evidence, it transpires that the cheque in question is Exhibit-1, it has been issued by the petitioner on 13.05.2006 on Rs.2,55,000/-. The cheque deposit receipt Exhibit-2 shows that the cheque in question was deposited for encashment in Central Bank, Daltonganj on 13.10.2006.

¶20

Bank returned memo Exhibit-5 shows that the cheque could not be encashed for want of sufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. Lawyer's notice is Exhibit-3 issued by Sri Tripurari Tiwari, Advocate Daltonganj on 26.10.2006 informing the petitioner that the cheque issued by him had bounced and he was requested to pay the aforesaid amount.

¶21

From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the opposite party No.2 has been able to prove that the petitioner had issued a cheque against loan taken from opposite party No.2 and the same could not be encashed for want of sufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. The cheque in question was placed for encashment within time. The lawyer's notice was

¶22

-3-

¶23

also issued to the petitioner within time and the complaint case was also filed within time by the opposite party No.2.

¶24

I do not find any illegality in the order of learned Trial Court holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. This Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.

¶25

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶26

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶27

Jay/-

Sanjay Alias Rajan Srivastava v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Alias Rajan Srivastava v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunita Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lalji Ahir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nilkamal Mahato Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Bashir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Debendra Nath Panda Debendra Panda Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Sunil Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunita Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lalji Ahir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nilkamal Mahato Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Bashir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Debendra Nath Panda  Debendra Panda Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Debendra Nath Panda Debendra Panda Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.