Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010009842024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./186/2024 CHANDU CHOWDHURY S/O LATE JATIN CHOWDHURY R/O TIRAP GATE, P.S. LEKHAPANI, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM PIN-786182 VERSUS JAYANTA GOGOI AND ANR S/O LATE PRABIN GOGOI R/O NEAR M .E.S. COLONY LEKHAPANI, P.O. AND P.S. LEKHAPANI SUB-DIVISION MARGHERITA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, SR. ADV, MR. A K GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRS. P B BORDOLOI (R-1),MS. J PAUL (R-1),MS. W SULTANA (R-1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 18-12-2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P.B. Bordoloi, Page No.# 2/5 learned counsel for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 2, State of Assam. 2. This present criminal petition under Section 482 read with Section 397/401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred seeking setting aside and quashing of Orders, dated 09.11.2023 and dated 14.11.2023, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC-1], Margherita in Criminal Appeal no. 09[4]/2023. 3. The respondent no. 1 as the complainant had instituted a complaint before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Margherita [‘the Trial Court’, for short] alleging commission of the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, as amended. In the complaint, it was alleged that the complainant lent a sum of Rs. 6,10,000/- through 11 nos. of cheques and another sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- in cash, Rs. 7,70,000/- in total, to the accused [the petitioner]. The accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 7,70,000/- from a bank account maintained by him in Punjan National Bank towards repayment of the borrowed amount. The cheque when presented stood dishonoured. The complainant after adhering to the procedure and formalities instituted the complaint thereafter, which was registered as N.I. Case no. 10/2021. The Trial Court found the petitioner accused guilty of the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence, the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge [FTC-1], Margherita [‘the Appellate Court’, for short] which has been registered as Criminal [Appeal] no. 09[04]/2023. The Appellate Court while admitting the appeal for hearing by an Order dated 09.11.2023, also directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount fixing 14.11.2023 for such deposit. When the appeal came up for consideration on 14.11.2023, the Appellate Court found that no case could be made out by the petitioner for waiver of the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. 5. Before the Appellate Court, the petitioner took a plea that he belongs to BPL category. But, such plea was rejected by the Appellate Court taking into account that the petitioner used to do business of betel nuts and it was in discharge of his liability, he had issued a cheque for the sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- in favour of the complainant. 6. Aggrieved by the Order dated 14.11.2023, the instant criminal petition is preferred seeking waiver or relaxation of the direction to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. 7. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents on 20.02.2024, had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the Appellate Court. It was observed that till disposal of the present petition, operation of the sentence passed against the petitioner vide Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2023 by the Trial Court would remain suspended. By the Order dated 20.02.2024, the petitioner was also directed to furnish a certified copy of the Order that would be passed by the Appellate Court after depositing Rs. 50,000/- Page No.# 4/5 before it. 8. Today, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a photocopy of the Order dated 29.02.2024 of the Appellate Court wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- had been deposited by the petitioner before the Appellate Court. The said amount was directed to be kept in safe custody of the Court. 9. To buttress the point that the petitioner belongs to BPL category, the petitioner has annexed a Certificate from the Mouzadar, Tirap Mouza, Bisa Gaon wherein it has been certified that the petitioner’s total annual income is Rs. 90,000/-. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1-complainant has submitted that the petitioner’s present financial condition has become precarious due to heavy expenditure incurred for his father’s cancer treatment. 11. The said sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been released in favour of the respondent no. 1-complainant. 12. As the petitioner has made out a case for reduction of the deposit amount and considering the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, [2023] 10 SCC 446, this Court is of the considered view that the interim order passed earlier on 20.02.2024 can be made absolute till the Page No.# 5/5 disposal of Criminal Appeal no. 09[4]/2023, presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC-1], Margherita. It is ordered accordingly. 13. It is expected that the Appellate Court would hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously. JUDGE Comparing Assistant