Sonatan Murasingh Vs Smt. Tinku Sarkar (Tripura High Court)
The Tripura High Court considered a criminal revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Gomati District, which had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹4,00,000, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default. The complainant had alleged that she advanced a friendly loan of ₹2,00,000 to the petitioner on 16 February 2022 for house construction. According to her, after failing to repay the loan within the agreed period, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 21 November 2022, which was dishonoured when presented. Despite issuance of a statutory demand notice, payment was allegedly not made, resulting in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner, and the Sessions Court affirmed the conviction.
Before the High Court, the petitioner challenged the conviction primarily on two grounds. First, it was argued that the statutory demand notice required under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act had not been served upon him. The petitioner contended that the notice was addressed to different addresses and was ultimately received by another person, namely Abhijit Murasingh, rather than by the petitioner himself. Reliance was placed on correspondence from the postal authorities and on judicial precedents holding that service of notice upon someone other than the drawer does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The petitioner also pointed out that during cross-examination, the complainant admitted receiving information from the postal authorities showing delivery of the notice to another individual.
