Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Order Date: 30 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Sambhunath Jena (Managing Director of an unnamed private limited company); Opponent – Laxmidhar Parida (complainant, proprietor of M/s Devi Daya Enterprises, Balikuda).
  • Proceedings: Criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, CRLREV No.97 of 2007 (CNR‑ODHC010185862007).
  • Background: The complainant’s firm supplied cattle feeds and chicks on credit. An amount of Rs 1,42,665 was outstanding as of 06‑12‑2002. The accused issued two cheques (No. 455059 dated 18‑11‑2002 and No. 455060 dated 25‑11‑2002) each for Rs 50,000 drawn on State Bank of India, Balasore Industrial Estate. The cheques were deposited on 25‑11‑2002 with U.T.I. Bank Ltd., Cuttack and were dishonoured due to insufficient funds because the accused’s account had been closed.
  • Notice: A registered notice demanding payment was sent on 18‑12‑2002 (acknowledged by the accused on 19‑12‑2002). No payment was made within the statutory 15‑day period. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 29‑01‑2003.
  • Trial Court Findings: The complainant examined himself as PW‑1 and his Managing Director as PW‑2, producing fifteen documents. The accused denied all allegations and produced no evidence. The trial court found the petitioner guilty under Section 138, sentencing him to three months simple imprisonment and a compensation of Rs 40,000.
  • Appeal: The petitioner appealed (Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2005) before the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Cuttack. During pendency, the petitioner paid the compensation of Rs 40,000, which was acknowledged by the respondent.
  • Appellate Court Decision: The appellate court upheld the conviction, stating that payment of compensation does not satisfy the dishonoured cheque amount and would defeat the object of the law.
  • Revision Petition: Counsel Mr. Debasish Samal argued that, given the compensation already paid and the complainant’s non‑appearance, the petitioner should be released under the Probation of Offenders Act.
  • Court’s Considerations: The court noted the long pendency (revision filed in 2007, judgment in 2026), the petitioner’s age (approximately 75 years), clean antecedents, and societal position.

Final Outcome

  • The conviction under Section 138 is maintained.
  • The petitioner is granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act (Section 360 Cr.P.C.).
  • He is to be released on bond of Rs 5,000 with a surety of equal amount, to be executed within two months.
  • He must maintain peace and good behavior and remain under the supervision of a Probation Officer for a period of two months.
  • The Criminal Revision is partly allowed; the sentence of imprisonment is replaced by probation.

Topics: Criminal Law, Probation