Paresh Kumar Barik Vs Jhunubala Mallick

2. In filing this CRLREV, the Revisionist/Petitioner has not only challenged the judgment dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Jajpur Road in 1CC No.41/18 (Trl. No.397-18), but has also challenged the judgment dated 11.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur Road in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2023.

¶17

3. Factual scenario of the case as well as submissions made on behalf of the parties remains:-

¶18

(i) Due to some financial constraint the Petitioner on 17.08.2015

¶19

had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/from the complainant/Opposite Party. After some time, when the complainant requested the Petitioner to repay the borrowed amount, the Petitioner issued a Cheque of S.B.I worth Rs.20,000/-

¶20

in her favour bearing Cheque No.897625 dated 06.01.2018.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:43

¶23

(ii) Thereafter, when the complainant/Opposite Party presented th e a bove noted Cheque before the Bank the concerned authority of the Bank returned the said Cheque with an endorsement of

¶24

Page 1 of 4

¶25

“Funds Insufficient”. Soon after the said Cheque gets dishonored, the complainant issued a legal notice to the Petitioner.

¶26

(iii) Despite the above development since the Petitioner did not repay the loan amount to the complainant, the complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide 1CC No.41/18 (Trl.No.397-18) before the learned JMFC, Jajpur Road.

¶27

(iv) Upon hearing the parties concerned and looking to the factual scenario of the case, the learned JMFC, Jajpur Road on 21.04.2023 disposed of the above noted 1CC Case. The direction portion of the judgment dated 21.04.2023 is extracted herein below:-

¶28

“Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court opines that the convict is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 01(One) month and to pay compensation of Rs.33,000/(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand) only, which includes interest payable U/S 357(3) of Cr.P.C. to the complainant which shall be realized from the convict like criminal fine for commission of the offence punishable U/S 138 of the N.I. Act. In default of payment of the amount, the convict is sentenced to further undergo S.I. for 15(Fifteen) Days.

¶29

The period of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, inquiry and trial of this case be set-off against the term of substantive imprisonment imposed on the convict.”

¶30

(v) Challenging the above noted judgment dated 21.04.2023 the accused /Petitioner again filed an appeal vide Criminal Appeal

¶31

No.09 of 2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Jajpur Road, which was also disposed of vide judgment dated 11^th Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of OrissaDate: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:43 A pril , 2024. The direction portion of the judgment dated 11^th April, 2024 is extracted herein below:-

¶32

Page 2 of 4

¶33

“Considering the amount of compensation awarded to the complainant when the complainant and the accused are co-villagers, this Court feels it just and proper to modify the sentence by directing the convict to pay compensation of Rs.33,000/(Rupees thirty three thousand) to the complainant and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month and fifteen (15) days. UTP period be set off. With the above modification of sentence the appeal stands dismissed. Issue modified warrant accordingly.

¶34

The amount of Rs.6,600/- had been deposited by the appellant in view of order No.02 dated 11.07.2023 in this appeal. If the said amount had already been paid to the complainant then it be adjusted from the compensation amount. Steps be taken for recommitment.”

¶35

(vi) Challenging the above noted two judgments the accused/Revisionist has filed the present CRLREV.

¶36

4. At the beginning learned counsel for the Revisionist/ Petitioner on instruction submits that the Revisionist/ Petitioner is ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.26,400/- (Rupees Twenty-six thousand four hundred only) to the complainant.

¶37

5. To the contrary, learned counsel for the Opposite Party/complainant submits that if the Revisionist/Petitioner does so, the complainant has no hesitation to accept the same.

¶38

6. Considering submissions made on behalf of both the parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity in both the judgments dated 21.04.2023 and 11.04.2023. This Court, however, considering the willingness of

¶39

Signature Not Verifiedthe Revisionist/Petitioner, directs him to deposit the balance Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant amount of Rs.26,400/- (Rupees Twenty-six thousand four Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:43 hundred only) before the concerned court below within a period of one month hence, which will be disbursed in favour of the

¶40

Page 3 of 4

¶41

complainant within a period of one week thereafter, but upon submission of sufficient proof of identification by her.

¶42

7. This CRLREV is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶43

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶44

Judge

¶45

Ayaskanta

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Jun-2024 17:33:43

¶48

Page 4 of 4

Paresh Kumar Barik v. Jhunubala Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Kumar Barik v. Jhunubala Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amitabh Choudhury Vs Secretary, Departme

Executive Engineer,Berhampur Electrical Division No.Iii Vs M/S.Vinayak Agro and Paddy Processor at Sihala

Tarani Ch.Dash Vs Chief Secretary,Gen

Prakash Kumar Sahoo Vs General Manager, the Oicl, New Delhi

Ratikanta Mohanta Vs State of Orissa

D.Sankar Reddy Vs State and Ors.