[Cheque Dishonour] Trial Court Overlooked Accused's Guilty Plea, Deposit Of Amount: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Conviction
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the accused had already pleaded guilty before the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge ignored the said aspect while allowing appeal.
The single judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia was hearing an application under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the judgment dated March 21, 2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner gave a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent. Thereafter, on October 14, 2022, the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner whereby he admitted to have taken Rs. 10,00,000/- from him. Moreover, with that letter, the respondent issued six numbers of cheque worth in total Rs. 11,20,000/- to the petitioner. The said cheques were dishonoured by the Bank. Therefore, the petitioner filed the case in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Dibrugarh against the present respondent.
During the pendency of the case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, on November 30, 2023, the respondent filed a petition whereby he deposited a cash amount of Rs 2,00,000/- and prayed that he may be given opportunity to pay the balance amount to the petitioner in instalments of Rs. 1,00,000/-. After consideration of the prayer made by the respondent, the trial court directed the respondent to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- every month to the present petitioner towards liquidation of loan amount of Rs. 10,000,00/-.
Even after that, the trial court continued the trial by recording evidence, etc. and finally, on August 19, 2024, passed a judgment convicting the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). The trial court held that though the respondent paid Rs 2,00,000/-, but failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs 9,20,000/-. The respondent was sentenced to pay the fine of Rs.10,00,000/-.
The respondent filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class was set aside.
The Court noted that on November 30, 2023, the respondent actually pleaded guilty and deposited a cash amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and prayed before the court to allow him to pay the remaining loan amount in instalments of Rs. 1,00,000/-. But the court directed the respondent to repay the loan in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The petitioner has already received the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
“At this stage, Section 375 of the old Criminal Procedure Code and 416 of the BNSS, 2023 comes into play. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge did not notice the aforesaid aspect of the case,” the Court said.
The Court noted that there is no doubt that the respondent pleaded guilty before the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
“Overlooking this aspect of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has disposed of the appeal by allowing the same. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh is bad in law. The judgment dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Criminal Appeal No.36(3)/2024 is set aside,” the Court held.
The Court remanded back the matter to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh for deciding the issues afresh.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 33
Case Title: Atmaram Agarwal v. Sri Bijay Kumar Nawka
Case No.: Crl.Rev.P./155/2025