Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010203802025 2026:GAU-AS:9100 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./387/2025 NIRANJAN SHARMA ALIAS NIRANJAN SARMA SON OF LATE KESHAB CH SARMA, R/O SOLE PROPRIETOR OF MS N.S. CONSTRUCTION, R/O MANAGALDOI TOWN, WARD NO 7, DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MR NABA JYOTI KAKATI SON OF SARAT CH KAKATI R/O VILLAGE KHAMUKH DHARAPUR AZARA KAMRUP(M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M AHMED, A. K. KANU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS P GUPTA(R2),MR. M J HAZARIKA(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 23.06.2026 Page No.# 2/5 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. The petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition under Section 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) in Criminal Appeal No.23/2024, affirming the judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in C.R. Case No.1950/2018. 3. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (“N.I. Act”, for short) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for a period of 8 (eight) months and to pay a fine of Rs.16,00,000/- (rupees sixteen lacs) to the complainant with default stipulation, vide order dated 13.02.2024 in connection with C.R. Case No.1950/2018. 4. The respondent Mr. Naba Jyoti Kakati, who was the complainant brought up Complaint Case No.1950/2018 against the petitioner. 5. The genesis of the case was that, the complainant/respondent No.2 is a businessman and a registered owner of 10 (ten) six wheeler dumpers, whereas, the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s N.S. Construction Company at Mangaldoi town. During their course of business, the petitioner took a dumper from the complainant on rental basis on 16.11.2017 in presence of 2 (two) witnesses, namely, Sri N. Ghosh and Mahatab Ali. The petitioner assured to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 and accordingly he issued a cheque of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 bearing Cheque No.056668 dated 25.01.2018 drawn on the Axis Bank, Mangaldoi. 6. It is contended that when the respondent No.2 deposited the cheque in his State Bank account at Dharapur Chariali branch, the cheque was dishonoured with a remark “drawer’s signature differs”. The fact of the dishonour of the cheque was intimated to the respondent No.2 by his bank through a written memo on 30.01.2018. A demand notice was sent to the petitioner on 06.02.2018 through registered post to pay the amount within 15 days. The notice was served on the petitioner on 12.02.2018, but the petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and hence the complaint case. 7. To substantiate his case, the respondent No.2 adduced the evidence of two witnesses including, himself, whereas the petitioner subsequently failed to adduce any evidence. 8. The respondent No.2 as PW-1 exhibited 4 (four) documents which are as follows:- Page No.# 3/5 (i) Cheque No.056668 dated 25.01.2018- Exhibit 1; (ii) Return memo dated 30.01.2018 – Exhibit 2; (iii) The Legal notice – Exhibit 3; (iv) Postal receipt of the demand notice – Exhibit 4 The other witness examined by the respondent No.2 was Shri Milan Ghosh, who deposed as PW-2. 9. During the course of this proceeding, the petitioner expressed his willingness to settle this dispute amicably. The petitioner then prayed for a lenient view and for an amicable settlement. It was submitted that the petitioner is unable to pay the entire amount and he is willing to pay the compensation but he cannot pay twice the amount of the cheque. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is not willing to settle this dispute amicably. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has no reason to justify why the compensation amount of Rs. 16 lacs should be scaled down. The petitioner had compelled respondent No. 2 to pursue two rounds of litigation as the petitioner had preferred C.A. No. 23/24 against the judgment and order of the J.M.F.C. dated 13.02.2024 in Complaint Case No. 1950c/18. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has resisted the submission of the petitioner to scale down the compensation amount from Rs. 16 lacs to cheque amount of Rs. 8 lacs. 12. It is submitted that the submission of the petitioner is not justified as the respondent No. 2 was deprived of a benefit of Rs. 8 lacs for 8 years whose valuation has degraded due to efflux of time. The petitioner had availed service of the dumper and now at a much later stage, he has prayed for respite. 13. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 14. Now, the petitioner is willing to settle the dispute amicably. It is also considered that this is a revision petition and the evidence is not required to be dealt with, in its entirety. This Court has to find out whether the concurrent orders of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court suffers from any perversity or Impropriety. As the petitioner is willing to pay the cheque amount, this Court has to find out if the concurrent orders of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court suffers from any impropriety or illegality. The records have been perused and in perusal of the records and without getting into the nitty gritties of Page No.# 4/5 the evidence, it is held that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court in CR Case No. 1950C/2018 dated 13.02.2024 and order dated 27.06.2025 in Crl.A. No. 23/2024 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. The evidence of PW1 i.e., respondent No. 2 reveals that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been made out against the petitioner. 15. He was thoroughly cross-examined relating to the ownership of his business in dealing with vehicles. However, it has been held both by the Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court that from the order dated 07.02.2020 it is clear that the petitioner admitted Exhibit-1 to be the cheque issued by him and he also admitted that Exhibit-1(i) is his signature. He also admitted that he had issued a blank cheque to the respondent No. 2 in lieu of a dumper but the said transaction failed to materialize. Even in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the petitioner admitted that the cheque was issued to the complainant albeit on good faith for road construction purpose under the PWD but the complainant never returned the cheque to him. 16. It was correctly held by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act despite his plea that there was no legally enforceable debt and the cheque was not issued to repay the amount of Rs. 8 lacs to the complainant. Now, the petitioner is willing to repay the cheque amount only. 17. I have considered the submission on behalf of the petitioner. Although, the respondent No. 2 is not willing to amicably settled the dispute, it appears that some relief may be granted to the petitioner for the benefit of both the parties. 18. Upholding the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) in Criminal Appeal No.23/2024 and the decision of the J.M.F.C., Kamrup(M) in C.R. Case No. 1950/2018, the order of sentence of fine is modified and the sentence of simple imprisonment is set aside. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 passed in C.R. Case No. 1950c/18 is modified and the petitioner is convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to a fine amount of Rs. 10 lacs and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months. The sentence of simple imprisonment of 8 months is set aside. 19. The petitioner is directed to complete the payment of the fine/compensation to the complainant/respondent No. 2 Naba Jyoti Kakati within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 21. Send back the original records of the Trial Court. 22. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant