Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 645 (GAU)

Satyabrata Bhattacharjee v. Ravi Surekha

2019-05-23

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision petition is filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 18.12.2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, in Case No. 2050/2006, convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and an amount of Rs. 55,468/- as compensation to the respondent as well as the judgment and order, dated 14.9.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Criminal Appeal No. 4(1)/2009, affirming the aforesaid judgment of the learned trial court. 2. I have perused the petition as well as the annexures furnished therewith including the judgments of the courts below. I have also perused record of the trial court and the evidence of the witnesses. 3. I have also heard Mr. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.K. Agarwala, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cheque, involved in this case was, in fact, issued by the petitioner in favour of the sole respondent as a security cheque and not as a cheque against payment of any liability. Since this is the only plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court has examined that aspect of the matter only. 5. On examination of the materials particularly the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that an amount, equivalent to the cheque amount, was misappropriated by the petitioner which he collected against supply of drugs and to be paid to the respondent. Such evidence remains unassailed in the entire proceeding. That being so, this appears to be a fact that the cheque, involved in this case, was issued against payment of the allegedly misappropriated amount of money which was definitely a liability towards respondent by the petitioner against supply of drugs. This aspect has been dealt with by both the courts below and arrived at concurrent findings that the cheque was issued in discharge of liability. That being so, in exercise of its revisional power, this court is not entitled to re-evaluate the materials on such question of fact as there is no law point raised. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgments of the learned courts below. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order, dated 4.12.2009, passed in Criminal Misc. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgments of the learned courts below. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order, dated 4.12.2009, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 718/2009 in this revision petition. By the said order, the conviction of the petitioner was suspended subject to the condition of his deposit of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- before the trial court. 7. That being so, if the amount aforesaid has already been deposited, the same be deducted from the compensation amount of Rs. 55,468/- and remaining amount shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the LCR by the court below. 8. If the said amount of Rs. 30,000/- has not been paid, then the entire amount of Rs. 55,468/- has to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within the above stipulated time of 1 (one) month and in default of payment of compensation, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. 9. That being so, substantive punishment of simple imprisonment for 3 months imposed by the learned courts below is found to be in the higher side, and therefore, the sentence is modified only to the extent of payment of the aforesaid compensation of amount of Rs. 55,468/- and in default of payment of the same, simple imprisonment for 3 months. 10. The revision petition is disposed of with the above modification in respect of the sentence while upholding the conviction recorded by the learned courts below. 11. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment. 12. The revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 1 (one) month to serve out the sentence.