CRLREV No. 787 of 2013 and Misc. Case No. 53 of 2017. Case: Purna Chandra Samal Vs State of Orissa and Ors.. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | CRLREV No. 787 of 2013 and Misc. Case No. 53 of 2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Hrudananda Mohapatra and A. Samantaray, Advs. and For Respondents: Deepak Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel |
| Judges | S.K. Sahoo, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 156(3), 386, 391, 401; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 |
| Judgement Date | January 25, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
S.K. Sahoo, J.
-
This is an application under section 391 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner Purna Chandra Samal for taking evidence of six prosecution witnesses examined in G.R. Case No. 649 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Barbil as additional evidence in the criminal revision.
As it appears that the petitioner faced trial in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Barbil in I.C.C. Case No. 34 of 2010/T.C. No. 735 of 2010 for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was found guilty of the aforesaid offence and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- (rupees two lakhs thirty thousand only) to the complainant vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.10.2011.
The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2012.
CRLREV No. 787 of 2013 has been filed before this Court challenging the aforesaid judgments and orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court.
-
Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) from the opposite party No. 2 Sanjeev Kumar and assured him to refund the amount within three to four months but due to his daughter's marriage, the borrowed money could not be returned by the petitioner within time. The petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the opposite party No. 2 on 16.03.2010. Subsequently the opposite party No. 2 told the petitioner that the issued cheque has been mutilated for which the petitioner issued another cheque in favour of the opposite party No. 2 in exchange of the mutilated cheque. The petitioner subsequently detected that the cheque which was returned to him by the opposite party No. 2 was a duplicate colour xerox cheque of the original cheque bearing No. 384812. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he received the demand notice from the opposite party No. 2 in respect of bouncing of both the cheques, he lodged a First Information Report on 21.08.2010 relating to fraud committed by the opposite party No. 2 in returning the cheque No. 384812 which was not the original cheque issued by the petitioner but it was a duplicate coloured xerox copy of the said cheque. Since the police did not take any action on the F.I.R., the petitioner filed a complaint petition bearing I.I.C. Case No. 41 of 2010 against...
To continue reading
Request your trial