Ashim Kumar Roy, J.:— This revisional application was taken up for consideration on merit since in spite of repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor had any accommodation been sought for.
Now, going through the averments made in this criminal revision and the grounds relied therein, it is found that the petitioner, who has been facing his trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has approached this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against him.
It is the case of the petitioner that under a Hypothecation Loan Agreement, the petitioner took a financial assistance from the opposite party No. 2 for purchasing a vehicle, namely, Hyundai Excavator and while taking such assistance, he deposited with the Financer four blank cheques as security and has been regularly liquidating his dues. However, the complainant behind his back and without his knowledge, deposited one of such blank cheques for encashment and such cheque being dishonoured, a criminal case for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted against him.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the cheque in question was never issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability but the same was kept with the financier as security.
It is the further case of the petitioner that already the Hyundai Excavator has been seized from the possession of the petitioner and same has been disposed of against valuable consideration and out of the sale proceed, quite a fair amount of money has been realized by the financier. Therefore, the cheque which was deposited as security was illegally presented for encashment and on its dishonour no criminal offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act can said to be committed. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned proceeding be quashed.
The grounds on which quashing has been sought for are essentially the defence of the accused and involved adjudication of disputed question of facts. Therefore, it is not permissible for this court to consider the question of quashing thereupon. Furthermore, according to the provisions of Section 139 of the N.I Act, when a cheque is issued, it is to be presumed that the holder of the cheque had received the same for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. Therefore, the onus imposed upon the accused, the drawer of the cheque has to be discharged in accordance with law by adducing evidence in his defence in course of the trial. The petitioner has failed to make out any case justifying quashing.
Accordingly, this criminal revision stands dismissed and disposed of.
It appears from record that in the case at hand the complaint was filed in December 2011 and after expiry of two and half year the date for plea was fixed in September 2014. What is the present stage of the case is not made known to this court from the side of the petitioner.
Be that as it may, if not as yet the plea has been recorded, the learned Magistrate is directed to record the same positively on the next date fixed and shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial within coming four months in the light of the provisions of Section 143 of the N.I Act.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.