Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Appeal in Negotiable Instruments Act Dispute

The case of Susanta Dey v. Babli Majumdar & Anr. revolves around a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated March 28, 2019, set aside the High Court’s decision that had convicted the appellant and ordered a fresh hearing before the Appellate Court.

This judgment is significant as it highlights the procedural safeguards in cheque bounce cases and the importance of appellate courts deciding matters based on existing material rather than ordering unnecessary remand.

Case Background

The respondent, Babli Majumdar, filed a complaint against the appellant, Susanta Dey, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the Judicial Magistrate First Court, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. The complaint alleged that the appellant had issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds.

By order dated June 29, 2004, the Judicial Magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to:

Two months of simple imprisonment.
A fine of Rs. 5,000, with an additional one-month simple imprisonment in default of payment.
Compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainant.

The appellant challenged the conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No. 7/2005 before the Sessions Court. On July 12, 2005, the Appellate Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the Judicial Magistrate for fresh evidence and reconsideration.

Aggrieved by the remand order, the complainant (respondent) filed a criminal revision petition before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court, by its order dated April 11, 2008, set aside the Appellate Court’s order and reinstated the Judicial Magistrate’s conviction and sentence.

The appellant then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, represented by Advocate Vijay Kumar, argued:

The High Court erred in bypassing the Appellate Court’s order and reinstating the Magistrate’s conviction.
The Appellate Court had the discretion to order a remand if it found that a fresh trial was necessary.
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by convicting the appellant instead of remanding the matter to the Appellate Court for reconsideration.

Respondent’s Arguments

The complainant (respondent), represented by Advocate Pijush K. Roy, countered:

The Appellate Court’s decision to remand the case was improper, as there was already enough evidence to decide the matter.
The High Court correctly intervened to prevent unnecessary delay and ensured justice was served.
The appellant had already been found guilty by the Magistrate, and there was no need for fresh evidence.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and directing the Appellate Court to decide the case afresh.

“The only question before the High Court in the revision was whether the Appellate Court was justified in remanding the case to the Judicial Magistrate for fresh evidence.”

The Court found that the High Court erred in taking over the case and reinstating the Magistrate’s conviction:

“Instead of deciding the issue of remand, the High Court proceeded to decide the complaint itself and reinstated the sentence, which was legally impermissible.”

The Court further noted:

“If the High Court found the remand order incorrect, it should have directed the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits rather than deciding the case itself.”

Regarding the necessity of remand, the Supreme Court observed:

“There was no need for the Appellate Court to remand the case to the Magistrate. The appeal should have been decided on merits instead of sending it for a fresh trial.”

As a result, the Supreme Court:

Set aside the High Court’s judgment.
Set aside the Appellate Court’s remand order.
Restored Criminal Appeal No. 7/2005 for fresh adjudication.
Directed the Appellate Court to decide the appeal within six months.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of proper appellate procedure in cheque bounce cases. The key takeaways from this judgment are:

Appellate Courts should decide appeals on merits rather than unnecessarily remanding cases for fresh trials.
High Courts must refrain from directly convicting an accused in a revision petition; their role is limited to examining the validity of lower court orders.
Judicial interference in appellate proceedings should only occur when procedural errors are apparent.
The integrity of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remains intact, but procedural fairness must be upheld.

By remanding the case to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision, the Supreme Court ensured that the appellant’s right to appeal was properly exercised, maintaining the balance between procedural justice and the interests of the complainant.

Petitioner Name: Susanta Dey.
Respondent Name: Babli Majumdar & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Jalpaiguri, West Bengal.
Judgment Date: 28-03-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Susanta Dey vs Babli Majumdar & Anr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Cheque Dishonour Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category