The Calcutta High Court has removed the six-month jail sentence imposed on a man convicted in a cheque dishonour case after finding that the trial suffered from a serious procedural flaw at its very beginning. However, the Court allowed the compensation order of ₹3 lakh to remain in force, noting that the amount had already been deposited before the trial court.
Background of the Case
The revision petition was filed by Sudipta Ghosh, challenging the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court that had convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque worth ₹1.5 lakh. The trial court had sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and directed payment of ₹3 lakh as compensation to the complainant, Chandana Pal. The appellate court later upheld that decision.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he had never been properly informed of the actual allegation because the notice of accusation referred to a completely different cheque and amount. He also questioned the complainant's financial capacity to advance the loan.
Court Finds Serious Defect in Trial
Justice Uday Kumar closely examined the trial records and found that when the substance of accusation was explained to the accused under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it mentioned an entirely different cheque number and a liability of ₹5 lakh instead of the cheque for ₹1.5 lakh that formed the basis of the prosecution.
Rejecting the argument that this was merely a clerical mistake, the Court held that such an error went to the root of the criminal trial.
The bench observed,
"The petitioner was legally called upon to defend himself against a five-lakh rupee transaction, but he was ultimately tried and convicted for a one-and-a-half-lakh rupee transaction."
According to the Court, a criminal trial cannot proceed on allegations that were never properly communicated to the accused, as doing so violates the basic principles of a fair trial.
Other Findings of the Court
The High Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the debt had become time-barred. It held that the issuance of the signed cheque amounted to an acknowledgement of liability under the Limitation Act, thereby extending the limitation period.
The Court also held that the statutory demand notice was validly served because it had been sent to the petitioner's office address and received there on his behalf.
However, while discussing the complainant's financial capacity, the Court noted that she had stated in cross-examination that she was unemployed and that the loan amount had come from her father. Since her father was not examined as a witness and no supporting documents were produced, the Court found an evidentiary gap in the prosecution case.
Court's Decision
Although the High Court held that the trial was affected by a fundamental procedural defect, it declined to order a fresh trial because the litigation had begun in 2006 and nearly two decades had passed. The Court also noted that, during the revision proceedings, the petitioner had already deposited the entire compensation amount of ₹3 lakh as directed earlier.
"The offense under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is an economic offense intended to provide financial restitution rather than simple punishment," the bench observed while concluding that continuing the prison sentence would serve no useful purpose after full restitution had been made.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the revision petition, set aside the sentence of six months' imprisonment, affirmed the compensation of ₹3 lakh, permitted the complainant to withdraw the deposited amount, discharged the petitioner from his bail bonds and closed the criminal proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Shri Sudipta Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 3434 of 2022
Judge: Justice Uday Kumar
Decision Date: 15 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
