Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010119552025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./215/2025 SRI ARUNAVA BHATTACHARJEE S/O- LATE ANIL KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE. R/O- SUBHAS NAGAR, KARIMGANJ TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- KARIMGANJ, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788710. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:SRI AJOY LOHAR S/O- SRI ANIL LOHAR. R/O- VILL.- CHOTODUDHPATIL PART-IV P.O.- HATTICHERA P.S.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78803 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SUTRADHAR, MR A B DEY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/621/2025 SRI ARUNAVA BHATTACHARJEE S/O- LATE ANIL KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE. R/O- SUBHAS NAGAR Page No.# 2/4 KARIMGANJ TOWN P.O. AND P.S.- KARIMGANJ DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788710. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM. 2:SRI AJOY LOHAR S/O- SRI ANIL LOHAR. R/O- VILL.- CHOTODUDHPATIL PART-IV P.O.- HATTICHERA P.S.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788030 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S SUTRADHAR Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 17.06.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. B. Dey for the applicant Arunava Bhattacharjee who has filed this Criminal Revision petition under Section 442,438 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 against the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 50/2019 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and upholding the conviction of the petitioner passed by the learned Trial Court under Section Page No.# 3/4 138 of the N.I. Act sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,38,060/- as compensation to the complainant. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. S. H. Bora for the respondent No. 1. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that without hearing the petitioner, who was the appellant in the criminal appeal, the order was passed without going into the merits of the case and upholding an erroneous order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar in N.I. Case No. 83/2013. 4. The learned Trial Court has completely ignored the revertal evidence obtained through cross-examination of the witnesses. 5. The learned Trial Court has ignored the answers of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. The applicant is totally innocent and has been falsely roped in this case. The cheque was not issued against the legal enforceable debt and thereby the petitioner is not liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 6. The applicant is not the CMD of the Relation Economic Developers Organization. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, every Director of the Board cannot be made liable for issuance of a cheque by the Company. 7. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamalkishor Shrigopal Taparia Vs. India Ener-Gen Private Limited & Anr, wherein vide order dated 13.02.2025 in SLP Crl. Nos. 4051-4054 of 2020, it has been held that:- “This Court has consistently held that a mere designation as a director does not conclusively establish liability under section 138 Page No.# 4/4 read with section 141 of the NI Act. Liability is contingent upon specific allegations demonstrating the director's active involvement in the company's affairs at the relevant time.” 8. I have considered the submission on behalf of the applicant. It appears that the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2019 in connection with C.R.(N.I.) Case No. 83/2013 may be stayed, until further orders. 9. The operation of the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 25.09.2019 in connection with C.R.(N.I.) Case No. 83/2013 is stayed until further order subject to condition that the applicant deposits 20% of the cheque amount before the learned Trial Court, within two months from today. 10. The applicant is enlarged on bail of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court may also impose conditions which the Court deems fit and appropriate. 11. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant