Calcutta High Court: In a criminal revision preferred under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) challenging conviction and sentence in connection with a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act), a single-judge bench comprising of Subhendu Samanta,* J., dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the judgment of the lower courts, stating that there was no perversity in their findings.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the complainant (Opposite Party 2) initiated a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner, alleging a verbal agreement for booking a flat. The complainant claimed to have given a token amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioner, who issued a cheque in return. The agreement between the parties did not materialize, and the complainant demanded the money, leading to the initiation of the complaint.
The petitioner filed the present criminal revision under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the CrPC challenging the judgment and order dated 01-07-2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Calcutta, affirming the conviction and sentence dated 30-08-2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in connection with case under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners contended that the dealing had not materialized, and he gave a blank dated cheque for security, making a part payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was acknowledged by the complainant’s representative. The petitioners asserted that the petitioner successfully proved the part payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- before depositing the cheque. The petitioner argued that the lower courts failed to appreciate the facts and erroneously concluded that the complainant denied the part payment.
The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to pay the remaining amount, leading to the dishonor of the cheque and the subsequent legal proceedings. The respondents contended that the matter had been conclusively decided by the lower courts based on the evidence presented. It was argued that a second revision on the same issue, already decided by lower courts, was not maintainable. The respondents emphasised the limited scope of interference by the High Court against concurrent findings and stated that inherent power under Section 482 could not be used for exercising powers expressly barred by the Code.
Court’s Assessment
The Court emphasised that the High Court’s revisional power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised only when the lower court’s order is perverse. The Court defined ‘perverse’ citing Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 and Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206, stating that findings based on no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence are considered perverse. The Court scrutinised the evidence presented by the petitioner, including Exhibit A and Exhibit B and the lower courts’ judgments and found no perversity in their findings.
The Court considered Exhibit A and Exhibit B but found that the petitioner failed to provide reasonable explanations for not mentioning them in the demand notice. The Court concluded that the lower courts did not commit any illegality in rejecting Exhibit A and Exhibit B as evidence. The Court affirmed the finding that the documents produced by the petitioner did not raise a reasonable doubt to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the present Criminal Revision and upheld the judgment of the Sessions Judge affirming the conviction and sentence. The petitioner was directed to comply with the Magistrate’s order by a specified date, and any previous stay order was vacated.
[Romi Hirawat v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4948, order dated 12-12-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Subhendu Samanta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Anirban Dutta, Mr. Sayantan Sinha, Ms. Anshumala Bansl, Ms. Prarthana S. Roy, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Pinak Kr. Mitra, Mr. K. Shah, Mr. Aniket Chaudhury, Counsel for the Opposite Party
Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala, Mr. Pratick Bose, Counsel for the State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
