Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010124792014 2025:GAU-AS:14324 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./231/2014 SMTI LILY DEB PROPRIETOR OF NATIONAL TRADERS, C/O BAJRAMG TEA COMPANY, MISSION ROAD, RAILWAY CROSSING, BOHOLA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM AND RESIDENT OF SENPARA, P.S. VIDYAPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS BRAHMAPUTRA IRON and STEEL CO. PVT LTD. SIKARIA COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, SATI JOYMATI ROAD, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN- 781001. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P BORGOHAIN, MR.B MAHESHWARI,MR.C S RAY,MR.A GOYAL,MR.A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MS.B BORA, MS.N CHOUDHURY,MR.M BORA,MS.P PATHAK,MR.A K BHUYAN Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 16/10/2025 Heard Ms. N Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. At the outset, it is to be noted that Mr. C S Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, when the matter was called up, had submitted that he would not be appearing in the matter any further. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent was heard and the matter is being considered on its merit. 3. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 26.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Crl. A. No. 164/2013, dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the judgment dated 05.08.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup at Guwahati, in C.R. Case No. 383C/2007, convicting and sentencing the petitioner, herein, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to the respondent, herein, under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 4. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under: The respondent, herein, had instituted a complaint case, being Complaint Case No. 383C/2007 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the petitioner, herein, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. In the said complaint, the respondent had, inter-alia, contended that on account of existing liabilities receivable from the petitioner, herein, the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No. 407436 dated 27.07.2006 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs), drawn on UCO Bank, Dhubri Branch to the respondent, herein. It was further projected that as per the instruction of the petitioner, herein, the cheque was deposited for clearance on 11.11.2006, however, the cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 13.12.2006 was issued by the respondent, herein, to the petitioner, demanding payment of the cheque amount within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of its receipt. The petitioner, herein, having failed to repay the cheque amount, the said complaint case was so instituted. Page No.# 3/6 On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 05.08.2013 convicted the petitioner, herein, under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) month. The learned Trial Court further directed the petitioner, herein, to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) only, as compensation to the respondent, herein, under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by the conviction affected in her case vide the judgment dated 05.08.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 164/2013 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup took up the appeal for disposal and the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.03.2014 upon appreciating the evidences coming on record and also considering the grounds urged before it by the petitioner, herein, proceeded to dismiss the said appeal and thereby, upheld the judgment dated 05.08.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had concluded that the cheque in question was issued in favour of the respondent, herein, by the petitioner in discharge of her liability. The learned Trial Court further basing on the evidences coming on record, had noticed that the cheque in question, when presented for clearance, the petitioner, herein, did not have sufficient fund in her account. 7. The learned Trial Court also concluded that the requirement of Section 138 NI Act was duly complied with by the respondent, herein, in instituting the proceeding and accordingly, held the petitioner, herein, guilty of commission of an offence under Section 138 NI Act and convicted her for the same. On such conviction, the petitioner, herein, was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) month and further, directed to pay to the respondent, herein, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) only, as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 8. The judgment dated 05.08.2013, on being assailed before the learned Appellate Court, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.03.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 164/2013 had drawn Page No.# 4/6 the following conclusions:- “12. The plea of the appellant before the learned Trial Court had been that she had given four cheques including the cheque under reference to one Laltan Rai, allegedly a person who also looks after the affairs of the respondent company, as s security as the business concern of the appellant used to take goods on credit from the respondent. However, the said Mr. Laltan Rai has been examined by the appellant as a defence witness (D.W.2) and he has not supported the case of the appellant. The appellant has tried to who that she had issued the chque sometime in the year 2004 by exhibiting Ext. A, a letter dated 19.12.2004 addressed to the respondent company stating that the said cheque, along with three more, were issued as security against a consignment to be sent by the respondent. However, the appellant has failed to give any proof of its being sent to the respondent or of the respondent having received the same. The appellant has also exhibited a certificate dated 03.05.2008 issued by the manager, Dhubri Branch of the SBI (Ext.B) which states that the cheques bearing nos. 407426 to 407250 were issued in favour of the proprietorship concern of the appellant on 02.12.2004. However, that would not mean that the appellant had given the cheuqe under reference to the respondent in the year 2004. It is trite law that in order to rebut the presumption raised under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, only a plausible explanation emanating from the accused is not sufficient. The rebuttal either has to by virtue of improbability of the existence of the said presumption inherent in the evidence adduced by the complainant or has to be on the basis of some cogent evidence led by the defence. Here, while on one hand, the story told on behalf of the respondent does not suffer from any inherent weakness so as to rebut the said presumption; on the other, the evidence led by the appellant in dispelling the said presumption does not even seem to give it an aura of probability. The possibility of the cheque under reference having been given as security is not inherent in the evidence led by the respondent and the appellant has not been able to make the said proposition look a probability. As such, I am unable to buy the plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the cheque was given as security to the respondent or Mr. Laltan Rai. The fourth point for determination is answered accordingly. 13. The evidence on record of the trial Court shows that D.W. 1 has admitted that he has not given any proof that he used to manage the affairs of the National Traders or that the accused had authorized him to be so. He has also admitted the signature of the accused, who happens to be his wife, on the cheque. Even if that be taken at its fact value, the accused cannot Page No.# 5/6 escape the liability of issuing the cheque. When she put her signature on the cheque, she cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be a mere paper signatory. As such, the plea taken by the appellant that she was not liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of her being a paper signatory cannot be accepted. 14. There are other grounds as well set forth in the memo of appeal which, however, were not pressed by learned counsel for the appellant at the time of argument and therefore, I consider them to have been abandoned. Needless to say that there is no point in discussing the merit of the said grounds.” 9. Basing on the said conclusion, the learned Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal and thereby, uphold the judgment dated 05.08.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court. 10. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. On a close perusal of the conclusion, so drawn in the light of the evidences coming on record during the trial, this Court finds no infirmity with the conclusions so drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 138 of NI Act would not mandate any interference. 11. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court notices that the judgment of the learned Trial Court was delivered on 05.08.2013 and around 12 years have lapsed since the date of passing of the said judgment by the learned Trial Court. 12. In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of imprisonment as directed by the learned Trial Court would require a modification. 13. Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner, herein, to pay to the respondent, herein, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) only, as directed by the learned Trial Court, as compensation, within a period of 6 (six) months from today. 14. In the event the said amount is paid by the petitioner, herein, the petitioner would not be required to undergo the sentence of imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) month. However, in the event the petitioner defaults to pay the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to the respondent, herein, within a period of 6 (six) months from today, the petitioner would be required to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months. Page No.# 6/6 15. With the above observation and direction, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 16. Registry to send down the records to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information. 17. Registry is also directed to forward a copy of this order to the petitioner for compliance. JUDGE Comparing Assistant