Page No. 1/3 GAHC010273992025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1346/2025 BIPUL CHANDRA DAS S/O GHANA DAS R/O UDAIPUR P.O. AND P.S. MERAPANI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM 2:M/S ARUNODOI ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY PARTNER SRI MUKUT SARMA R/O BORPABHOJAN GAON P.O. AND P.S. BORPOTHAR DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM. Advocate for : MR. B D GOSWAMI Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 16.12.2025 Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam. Page No. 2/3 2. The instant application is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the applicant-revision petitioner and for his release on bail. 3. The applicant as the revision petitioner has preferred the accompanying criminal revision petition against a Judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Court of Sessions, Golaghat [‘the Appellate Court’, for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 26/2024 whereby the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant-revision petitioner, has affirmed a Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhansiri, Sarupathar [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in Complaint Petition no. 06/2022. By the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2024, the Trial Court after finding the petitioner, who was arraigned as the accused, guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments [NI] Act, 1881, as amended, has convicted him and the applicant- revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 [six] months and to pay a fine of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent no. 2. 3. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner has submitted that the complainant instituted the complaint petition in the name of M/s Arunodoi Enterprise wherein he is stated to be a partner. It is submitted that the complainant did not exhibit any Authorisation Letter to institute the complaint in the name of M/s Arunodoi Enterprise during the course of the trial. He has further submitted that in the dishonoured cheque, the signature of the applicant-revision petitioner was not exhibited during the trial. The complainant claimed that he deposited the cheque for collection at Borpathar Branch of SBI whereas the cheque was, in fact, presented for collection in the Sarupathar Branch of the SBI and the return memo was issued from the Sarupathar Branch of the SBI only. 4. The above submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant-revision petitioner have been considered qua the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. The cheque so dishonoured was issued from the cheque book issued in favour of the petitioner wherein his name was reflected. Further, the cheque was issued in the name of the firm, M/s Arunodoi Enterprise and the complaint was instituted in the name of M/s Arunodoi Page No. 3/3 Enterprise wherein the complainant had projected himself as one of the partners. Rather than presentation of cheque for a collection at a particular branch of the Bank, it is the collection of the cheque amount or return of the cheque unpaid to the drawee, which is material. Prima facie, presentation of a cheque like the dishoured cheque in the case in hand, which is payable at per at all branches, is insignificant. The cheque was returned unpaid due to insufficiency of the fund in the account of the applicant-revision petitioner. 5. From the Judgments of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, it is noticed that M/s Arunodoi Enterprise used to deal in selling of diesel, petrol, lubricants, etc. and the applicant-revision petitioner is a businessman, Government contractor and order supplier. A number of documents reflecting transactions between the two sides were exhibited during the trial. It further emerges that towards payment, the applicant-revision petitioner, as per the testimony of the complainant, had paid sums of Rs. 58,57,556/- and Rs. 13,35,800/- on two different occasions against a liability of Rs. 79,23,334.86. The cheque in question was stated to be issued to discharge of a part of the balance amount due to the complainant firm. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the operation of the impugned Judgment of the Appellate Court shall remain suspended subject to deposit of 20% of the fine amount to be paid by the applicant-revision petitioner within a period of 60 [sixty] days from today. It is further ordered that the applicant-revision petitioner shall be allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The applicant-revision petitioner is to place the deposit receipt immediately after expiry of 60 [sixty] days before this Court for continuation of the interim order. Further order on the interim prayer would be made subject to placing a copy of the receipt evidencing deposit of the afore-said amount before this Court after expiring of 60 [sixty] days period. JUDGE Comparing Assistant