Anda di halaman 1dari 12

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GOLAGHAT, ASSAM

C.R. CASE NO-155/2011

U/S 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

BIPUL SARMA

…………..Complainant.

V.

DURNA KANTA BORI & RANA BARTHAKUR.

……..Accused persons.

PRESENT: - MRS. LEENA DOLEY, AJS

J.M. FIRST CLASS, GOLAGHAT.

FOR THE PROSECUTION: - Mr. NAGEN BHATTACHARJYA, Mr.PRAFULLA KUMAR

BARTHAKUR, Mr. TAPAS KUMAR BHATTACHARJYA...Advocates.

FOR THE DEFENCE: - Mr. LAKHI TAMULY, Mr. R.RAI….Advocates.

EVIDENCE RECORDED ON: - 02-09-2011, 07-12-2011, 17-11-2011, 09-08-2012,

19-09-2012.

ARGUMENTS HEARD ON: - 11-12-2012, 31-12-2012, 09-01-2013, 02-02-2013.

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: -02-02-2013.

JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution case in brief is that Sri Bipul Sarma, Sri Dornakanta Bori
and Sri Rana Barthakur are well known to each other and that Sri
Dornakanta Bori is the Chairman and Sri Rana Barthakur is the Secretary of
the Missamora Samabai Samittee Ltd, Missamora. Rana Barthakur being
the Secretary of the Samabai Samittee asked Bipul Sarma to invest an
amount of Rs 3,70,000/- (rupees three lakh seventy thousand only) in the
samittee as Bipul Sarma is a shareholder in the samittee. Thereafter Bipul
Sarma invested an amount of Rs 2,70,000/-(rupees two lakh seventy
thousand only) and Rana Barthakur received this amount after executing an
agreement on 14-06-2010 and also executed a hand note acknowledging
the receipt of the said amount on 14-06-2010. As per condition of
agreement dated 14-06-2010 Rana Barthakur gave Bipul Sarma an amount
of Rs 13,500/- (rupees thirteen thousand five hundred only) from the profit
earned by the Samittee from the amount invested by Bipul Sarma. Bipul
Sarma did not receive any amount from profit earned by the Samittee for
which Bipul Sarma wrote a letter to the Missamora Samabay Samittee Ltd
asking the same to return his invested amount of Rs 2,70,000/-(rupees two
lakh seventy thousand only) including the profit earned from the invested
amount for last six months amounting to Rs 81,000/- (rupees eighty one
thousand only) and total amounting to Rs 3,51,000/-(rupees three lakh fifty
one thousand only). Rana Barthakur received the said letter and issued a
cheque bearing No 037668 dated 07-02-2011 for Rs 3,51,000/- drawn on
the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, in discharge of his liability to
pay the same amount to Bipul Sarma under the joint signatures of
Dornakanta Bori and Rana Barthakur.

Bipul Sarma presented the cheque for payment in his


account at SBI, Dergaon Branch but the same cheque was returned to Bipul
Sarma on 18-02-2011 with a memo dated 17-02-2011 that there is
insufficient funds in the account of the drawer of Assam Co-operative Apex
Bank Limited Dergaon. Thereafter on 19-02-2011 Bipul Sarma wrote a letter
about the dishonor of the said cheque to the Chairman of the Samittee but
the Chairman viz. Sri Jiban Baruah replied that he is not the signatory and
refused to take the liability. Then Bipul Sarma having no other alternative
sent lawyer’s notice to both Rana Barthakur and Dornakanta Bori and the
Samabay Samittee by registered post for making payment of the amount of
the cheque within 15 days of receipt of the said notice. Rana Barthakur and
Dornakanta Bori received the notice on 04-03-2011 but failed to make the
payment. Rana Barthakur on the other hand sent a reply notice on 16-03-
2011 incorporating some false and vexatious allegations. Bipul Sarma being
aggrieved by the cause of action has lodged this case against Rana
Barthakur and Dornakanta Bori.

2. The Complainant Bipul Sarma was examined U/S 200 Cr.P.C vide his sworn
in affidavit and after perusal of the complaint petition, statement of the
complainant on oath and the documents filed therewith, this court took
cognizance under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881
against the accused persons and issued summons to the accused persons
for facing trial.

3. The accused persons appeared in the court on 17-06-2011 and were


enlarged on bail. After a preliminary hearing the particulars of the offence
under section 138 of N.I.Act was read over and explained to the accused to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial.
4. Prosecution examined three witnesses in order to prove its case and the
accused also adduced three witnesses.

5. The accused were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on 21-12-2011 and in their examination they have denied the
allegations leveled against them and stated those to be baseless.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsels of both the sides.

7. After analyzing the evidences and various documents in record and also
after hearing the arguments lead by the Learned counsels of both the sides
I frame the following points for determination:

(A) Whether the accused Sri Rana Barthakur in the capacity of the Secretary
of the Missamora Samabai Samittee and on behalf of the same Samittee
took an amount of Rs 2,70,000/- from the complainant by executing an
agreement and a hand note and was under liability of paying back an
amount of Rs 3,51,000/- for which both the accused persons issued a
cheque bearing No 037668 dated 07-02-2011 in favour of the
complainant to be drawn at the Assam Co- Operative Apex Bank,
Dergaon Branch.

(B) Whether the said cheque was dishonoured by Assam Co- Operative
Apex Bank, Dergaon Branch, due to insufficient fund in the Missamora
Samabai Samittee’s account, maintained at the same bank and the
accused persons failed to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque
within 15 days from the receipt of the lawyer’s notice and thereby the
accused persons being signatories of the cheque, committed an offence
punishable under section 138 of the N.I.Act.

If yes, what punishments do they deserve?

8. DISCUSSIONS, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

I have carefully examined the evidences on record, analyzed the relevant


documents on record and after hearing the arguments advanced by the
Learned Counsels of both the sides, give my decision on the above noted
points as follows:-

i) PW1 in his examination in chief has stated that the accused


Rana Barthakur (hereinafter accused No 2) holding the post of the
Secretary of the said Samittee, approached him to invest an amount of Rs
3,70,000/- (rupees three lakh seventy thousand only) in the Missamora
Samabai Samittee as he was also a shareholder. Exhibit 7 is the letter sent
by the accused No 2 to the complainant (PW1) asking for investments as
the Secretary of the Missamora Samabai Samittee and Exhibit 7(1) is the
signature of the accused No 2 Sri Rana Barthakur. PW1 then invested an
amount of Rs 2,70,000/- (rupees two lakh seventy thousand only) and the
same amount was received by accused No 2 by executing an agreement
and a hand note both dated 14-06-2010. Exhibit 8 is the agreement and
Exhibit 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) are signatures of accused No 2 Sri Rana Barthakur
and Exhibit 8(4), 8(5) and 8(6) are signatures of the complainant (PW1) Sri
Bipul Sarma. Exhibit 9 is the hand note and Exhibit 9(1) is the signature of
accused No 2 Sri Rana Barthakur.

ii) PW1 has deposed that as per the agreement i.e. Exhibit 8,
the accused No 2 paid him an amount of Rs 13,500/- (rupees thirteen
thousand five hundred only) as profit earned by the Samittee for the month
of July 2010 from the amount invested by him. He has deposed that
thereafter since July 2010 till January 2011, the accused No 2 has not made
any payment to him from the profit earned by the Samittee and for this
reason on 06-01-2011 he wrote a letter to the Missamora Samabai
Samittee asking return of his invested amount i.e Rs 2,70,000/- and the
profit earned from his investment by the Samittee for last six months
amounting to Rs 81,000/- i.e Rs 3,51,000/- in total. Exhibit 10 is a copy of
the said letter and Exhibit 10(1) is the signature of accused No 2
acknowledging the receipt of the original letter.

iii) The accused No 2 in his examination in chief as DW1 has


admitted the receipt of Rs 2,70,000/- from the complainant (PW1) as
shareholder and deposed that the complainant (PW1) asked for 5% of the
net profit. DW1 has also admitted that he paid Rs 13,500/- as 5% of net
profit to the complainant for one time, these admitted facts need not be
proved.

iv) PW1 has further deposed that the accused No 2 after


receiving the letter dated 06-01-2011 issued a cheque bearing No 037668
dated 07-02-2011 for an amount of Rs 3,51,000/- to the complainant drawn
on the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Limited under joint signatures of
accused No 2 and Sri Dornakanta Bori hereinafter accused No 1. Exhibit 1 is
the cheque and Exhibit 1(1) and 1(2) are the signatures of the accused Sri
Rana Barthakur and Sri Dornakanta Bori respectively. But DW1 in his
examination in chief has deposed that he has returned an amount of Rs
50,000/- to the complainant (PW1) out of his invested amount in the
Samittee but DW1 failed to prove the fact with supporting document and
mere stated that the complainant (PW1) did not issue him any money
receipt.

v) PW1 has also deposed that he presented the cheque for


payment in his account at the State Bank of India, Dergaon Branch but the
same was returned unpaid with a memo of endorsement that there is
insufficient fund in the account of the drawer. Exhibit 2 is the cheque
return memo of the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd, Dergaon Branch
dated 17-02-2011 and Exhibit 2(1) is the seal and signature of the Assam
Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd, Dergaon Branch. Exhibit 3 is the bank
intimation letter of the SBI, Dergaon Branch dated 18-02-2011 and Exhibit
3(1) is the seal and signature of the SBI, Dergaon Branch.

vi) PW1 has further deposed that after the dishonor of the
cheque, he wrote a letter to the Chairman viz Sri Jiban Baruah on 19-02-
2011 about the dishonour of the cheque but the Chairman Sri Jiban Baruah
in his reply dated 21-02-2011 refused to take the liability stating that he is
not the signatory in the alleged cheque. Exhibit 12 is the letter of the
Chairman of the Samittee and Exhibit 12(1) is the signature of Sri Jiban
Baruah.

vii) PW1 has deposed that having no other alternative he


sent Lawyer’s Notice to both the accused persons through his advocate Sri
N. Bhattacharjya and to Missamora Samabai Samittee on 26-02-2011 by
registered A.D. post demanding to make payment of the cheque amount
within 15 days from the receipt of the notices and the notices were duly
received by the accused persons on 04-03-2011. Exhibit 4 is a photocopy of
the registered Legal Notice dated 26-02-2011 and Exhibit 5 is the postal
registered receipt dated 26-02-2011. Exhibit 6 are the three
acknowledgment receipts and Exhibit 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3) are the signatures
of the recipient.

viii) The accused No 2 sent a reply notice on 16-03-2011


stating that the alleged cheque was lost and that the complainant (PW1)
has stolen and used it. PW1 has deposed that the accused No 2 in his reply
stated that he has informed about the lost cheque, in the Dergaon police
station and also in the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, Dergaon
Branch and also sent along copies of those documents, which shows that
he informed the Dergaon police station and the Apex Bank on 18-02-2011
putting his signature as the Secretary of the Missamora Samabai Samittee
and using the seal of the Samittee. Exhibit 13 is the reply of the accused No
2, to the notice sent by the complainant and Exhibit 13(1) is his signature.
Exhibit 14 is a copy of the information given to the Officer in Charge of
Dergaon police station about the lost cheque and Exhibit 15 is a copy of
letter giving information about the lost cheque to the Branch Manager,
Assam Co-operative Apex Bank, Dergaon Branch. DW1 has in his
examination in chief admitted these documents Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 and
Exhibit 15.

ix) PW1 has deposed that since the accused persons


failed to repay the cheque amount of Rs 3,51,000/- till 19-03-2011 i.e. after
elapse of 15 days from receipt of the Lawyer’s notice on 04-03-2011, he
filed this case against the accused persons.

x) DW1 has in his cross examination denied the


suggestion that he submitted the Exhibit 14 i.e. information about the lost
cheque in the Dergaon police station on 18-02-2011 after receiving the
information of dishonour of the cheque on 17-02-2011. DW1 has further
denied the suggestion that he had no locus standi in informing the Apex
Bank about stopping payment of the alleged cheque on 18-02-2011 as he
was transferred to Jorhat and he ceased to hold the post of the Secretary of
the Samittee on 11-02-2011.

xi) The Learned Counsel for the complainant (PW1) has


also argued on this point that the accused No 2 has submitted Exhibit 14 in
the Dergaon police station on 18-02-2011, whereas the alleged cheque
Exhibit 1 was dishonoured on 17-02-2011 and claimed that the accused No
2 submitted Exhibit 14 after receiving the information of the dishonour of
the alleged cheque on the previous day. The prosecution has further
argued that the accused No 2 has no locus standi for informing the Apex
Bank vide Exhibit 15 for stopping the payment of the alleged cheque as
accused No 2 was transferred to Jorhat and ceased to hold the post of
Secretary Missamora Samabai Samittee on 11-02-2011.

xii) In order to decide the above point, the accused No 2


(DW1) has in his cross examination deposed that he held the post of
Missamora Samabai Samittee from April 2009 till 11th Febraury 2011, which
has poured more light into the point of his tenure and it is evident from the
admission of DW1 that he was had no locus standi to write a letter to the
Apex Bank in the capacity of the Secretary Missamora Samabai Samittee or
to the Dergaon police station.

xiii) DW1 has admitted Exhibit 1(1) as his signature in his


examination in chief but has denied the signature in Exhibit 1(2) as that of
the accused No1 Sri Dornakanta Bori. He has deposed that the accused No
1 is a Senior Inspector of Co-operative Society and was appointed as an
executive officer, from the government for three months till the selection
of new committee, as the committee in the Samittee was dissolved. He has
further deposed that the signature in Exhibit 1(2) belongs to former
Chairman whose name he does not know.

xiv) DW2 (accused No 1) has in his examination in chief


deposed that he was appointed as an Executive Officer in Missamora
Samabai Samittee from 16-11-2009 till 18-03-2010, as the committee of the
said Samittee was dissolved. Exhibit ka is the appointment letter as
Executive Officer and Exhibit ka (1) is the signature of the Zonal Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He has deposed that a certificate was
given to him after his tenure as the Executive Officer for three months, with
signature of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Golaghat. Exhibit
kha is the certificate and Exhibit kha (1) is the signature of Asstt. Registrar
of Co-operative Societies. DW2 has further deposed that Exhibit 1(2) is not
his signature and that he did not issue the same and also stated that he
cannot put his signature as Chairman but only can put his signature as in-
charge. He has deposed that Exhibit 1 was not issued during his tenure and
that he knows nothing about it.

xv) On the other hand DW1 in his cross examination


has admitted that Jiban Baruah the present Chairman of the Samittee has
in Exhibit 12 stated that the signature in Exhibit 1, is that of the accused No
1 Sri Dornakanta Bori. DW1 has further in his cross examination admitted
that in his reply to the lawyer’s notice i.e. Exhibit 13, he has stated that the
signature in the cheque, Exhibit 1 is that of Sri Dornakanta Bori who was
the departmental officer and was in charge of additional works of the
Samittee. DW1 has further deposed that Dornakanta Bori used to put his
signature in cheques in advance and keep in store as he was not able to
visit the Samittee every day.
xvi) From the discussions till here it is evident that
Exhibit 1(1) is the signature of accused No 2 as admitted by the accused No
2 himself in evidence as DW1. The signature i.e. Exhibit 1(2) is in question,
the accused No 1(DW2) has though denied Exhibit 1(2) as his signature he
has not adduced any evidence to prove the same, except Exhibit ga wherein
the Asstt Registrar of Co-operative Societies have attested signatures put
by him in a paper. The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued at
this point that Exhibit ga issued by the attesting officer i.e. Asstt Registrar of
Co-operative has no legal value as the accused No 1 did not apply for it in
writing before the attesting officer praying for attesting his signatures. The
Learned Counsel has further argued that the accused No 1 has not
forwarded Exhibit 1 for scientific examination at the Forensic Science
Laboratory to prove that Exhibit 1(2) is not his signature. Further DW2 has
denied the suggestion that he has put in his signatures in Exhibit ga in a
different manner and produced in the court.

xvii) The law under N.I.Act is clear that the burden to


prove the signature in Exhibit 1(2) does not belong to that of accused No 1,
lies on the accused No 1 unlike any other criminal cases. Exhibit ga is not a
reliable piece of evidence and I am of the opinion that the accused No 1 has
failed in adducing sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation that Exhibit
1(2) is not his signature. Further the admission of DW1 in his cross
examination that the signature is of Sri Dornakanta Bori i.e accused No 1 as
replied in Exhibit 13 and his admission that the present Chairman of the
Samittee Sri Jiban Baruah also identified the signature in Exhibit 1 as that of
Dornakanta Bori have poured more light into the fact that Exhibit 1(2) is the
signature of accused No 1 and I decide the point No A in the positive that
the accused persons were under liability of discharging a legally
enforceable debt, for which they issue Exhibit 1.

xviii) DW2 in his cross examination has admitted that he


did not inform the Apex Bank to cancel the payment of cheques bearing his
signature after his release from the post of the I/C of Chairman of the
Samittee. Further he has also admitted that the bank has returned the
cheque for reason of insufficient funds and did not raise any issue with
respect to the signatures in the cheque. He has also admitted that the bank
is intimated about the joining of new officer and the cheques issued by
former officers are automatically returned without payment. He has denied
the suggestion that he and accused No 2 knowing very well that there is not
sufficient funds in the account of the Missamora Samabai Samittee issued
the cheque Exhibit 1 and thereby cheated the complainant.
xix) From the above discussion at para xviii it is clear
that the bank did not raise any issue with respect to the signatures i.e.
Exhibit 1(1) and Exhibit 1(2) and hence it is evident that the signatories i.e.
accused No 1 and accused No 2 are authorized persons to put their
signatures and have done during their tenure.

xx) DW3 is the store keeper of the Samittee and in his


examination in chief has deposed that he has the knowledge that the
cheque Exhibit 1 was lost but in his cross examination has deposed that he
does not know if it was actually lost or not.

xxi) PW2 is the customer relation officer of the State


Bank of India, Dergaon Branch and in his examination in chief has deposed
that the complainant is a customer of SBI, Dergaon Branch and he
deposited Exhibit 1, which is a cheque of Assam Co-operative Apex Bank for
payment on 07-02-2011 and that the said cheque was endorsed in their
bank and Exhibit 1(3) is the endorsement, which is signature and seal of the
Branch Manager and was forwarded to the Apex Bank for collection on the
very day. He has deposed that the cheque No was -037668. He has again
deposed that the said cheque was returned to SBI on 17-02-2011 with an
endorsement that there is insufficient fund in the account of the cheque
executor. Exhibit 2 is the cheque return memo and Exhibit 2(1) is the seal of
the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd, Dergaon Branch. He has deposed
that the complainant was intimated about the dishonour of the said cheque
on 18-02-2011. Exhibit 3 is the bank intimation letter issue by SBI, Dergaon
Branch to the complainant and Exhibit 3(1) is the signature and seal of the
Branch Manager.

xxii) PW3 is the Branch Manager of Assam Co-


operative Apex Bank Ltd, Dergaon Branch and in her examination in chief
has deposed that Exhibit 1 is the cheque of their branch and is a cheque of
the account No 150, which belongs to Missamora Samabai Samittee. She
has deposed that she knows all the stated facts from the ledger of their
bank and that Exhbit 17 is an extract copy of the ledger of account No 150
and Exhibit 17(1) is the signature of the Sub-Accountant and Exhibit 17(2) is
her signature as the Branch Manager. She has deposed that there was an
amount of Rs 2583/- in the account No 150 on 17-02-2011 and therefore
Exhibit 1 was returned without payment for reason of insufficient fund. She
has also deposed that Exhibit 2 is the cheque return memo of their bank i.e
Assam Co-operative Apex Bank and a tick mark of insufficient fund and also
bears the signature of Sub Accountant Sri Binoy Goswami and seal of the
bank.

xxiii) PW3 has in her cross examination deposed that


the Missamora Samabai Samity lodged a complaint with their bank about
two lost cheques but did not mention the particulars of those cheques.

xxiv) From the discussions in the para xviii till xxiii it is


seen that the cheque Exhibit 1 was deposited by the complainant (PW1) in
the SBI, Dergaon Branch which was a document of Assam Co-operative
Apex Bank, Dergaon Branch of account No 150 belonging to Missamora
Samabai Samittee and which was dishonoured by the Assam Co-operative
Apex Bank due to insufficient fund in the account No 150. It is pertinent to
be mentioned here that while writing this judgment I did not find Exhibit
17, 17(1) and 17(2) in the case record. But since all other documents
relating to the banks are in record I deemed it proper to write the
judgment. Moreover Exhibit 17 is a copy of ledger of Assam Co-operative
Apex Bank which can be obtained again and I am of the opinion that
judgment should not be deferred on this ground only when all other
incriminating evidence against the accused persons are in the case record.

xxv) It is crystal clear that the accused persons issued


the cheque Exhibit 1 and from the evidence of PW2 and PW3 it is also
evident that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the
account of the Samittee and hence I decide point No B also in the positive.

xxvi) One important point came up for argument, the


Defence Counsel argued that the account No 150 was that of Missamora
Samabai Samittee and that the accused persons were not personally liable
for repaying any debt to the complainant for which they issued the cheque
Exhibit 1 but were linked through the Missamora Samabai Samittee and
hence the Samittee was also an accused but the prosecution did not
include the Samittee as an accused. The prosecution in their reply put
reliance on a judgment passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.V.
Rangam V. B. Govinda Reddy and anothers cited as 2004 CRI.L.J.3170,
wherein it was held that apart from the company the person who has
drawn the cheque also is liable for punishment U/S 138 of the N.I.Act, so
merely because the company in which the petitioner was a Director is not
shown as an accused in the complaint, it cannot be said that the complaint
against the petitioner is not maintainable. In the said judgment reference
has been made of a judgment of the Apex Court Anil Hada V. Indian Acrylic
Limited cited as 2000 Cri LJ 373 which also holds that merely because the
company was not made a party to the complaint, it cannot be said that the
complaint is not maintainable against the accused persons. Thus in this
instant case the accused persons being the Chairman and the Secretary of
the Samittee are liable of committing offence punishable U/S 138 of the
N.I.Act and the plea taken by the Defence about non- joinder of the
company is not sustainable.

xxvii) The Defence has also argued that the accused


persons have no individual liability against the complainant as the account
in the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank was in the name of the Samittee and
not in the name of the accused persons and hence the accused persons
cannot be held liable and has put their reliance on a judgment passed by
the Karnataka High Court in Shivappa Reddy V. C.K. Jagannath cited as 2010
Cri L.J 4759. On perusal of the judgment it is seen that the cheque in
question was issued by the accused but there was nothing in the cheque to
show that the cheque was issued by the accused in the capacity of the
Secretary of Milk Producers Co-operative Society and hence the accused
was acquitted but in our instant case the cheque i.e. Exhibit 1 consist the
signatures of the accused persons in their capacity as the Chairman and the
Secretary of the Samittee along with seal hence in my opinion the judgment
relied upon is not fit in this instant case. In the result I am of the opnion
that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge U/S 138 of the
N.I.Act against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and
decide the points in the positive and against the accused persons.

xxviii) Heard the accused persons on point of sentence


where they have stated that they are service holders and hence prays for
leniency. Taking their prayer into consideration along with his age,
character and conduct in the court I do not intent to give him the benefits
as provided under section 3 or 4 of Probation of Offenders’ Act as the cause
of action in this case is with respect of a huge amount of money and the
accused persons have committed the offence in the capacities of the
Chairman and Secretary of the Samittee which consist of shareholders also
and these accused have done wrong to these sharholders as well as public
at large and hence decides to pass sentence of imprisonment against the
accused.
ORDER

9. In the result from the facts and circumstances of the case and after
detailed analysis of the evidences on record I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the accused persons Sri Rana
Barthakur and Sri Dornakanta Bori beyond any reasonable doubt and hence
the accused are convicted.

I hereby sentence both the accused persons to undergo simple


imprisonment for a period of four months for committing an offence
punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

Apart from the sentence of imprisonment, this court is of the


opinion that the complainant has to be compensated for his loss and
sufferings in his continuous process of trial as provided under section
357(3) CrPC. Heard both the sides on point of compensation, which has to
be recovered from the accused as per the principles laid down by our
Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Ambika Baishya v. State of Assam & anothers
reported as (2009) 6 GLR 726.

The Learned Counsel for the complainant has stated that the
complainant suffered a huge loss due to filing litigating and prays for
awarding a compensation equivalent to double the cheque amount. On the
other hand the Learned Counsel for the accused stated that the accused
persons are only service holders and have their respective families to
support and prays for leniency.

Considering all the factual as well as legal aspects, I hereby


direct the accused persons to pay compensation of Rs 3,91,000/- (rupees
three lakhs ninety one thousand only) i.e Rs 40,000/- in addition to the
cheque amount of Rs 3,51,000/- to the complainant which will compensate
the loss suffered by the complainant for the act of the accused.

10.Furnish a free copy of this judgment to the accused immediately.

11. Signed, sealed and delivered in the open court, on this 2nd day of Febraury,
2013, at Golaghat.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai