9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 195 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of revision petition - Dishonor of Cheque - petitioner herself admitted in the insolvency petition No. 9/2016 filed by her in the City Civil Court that she was indebted to many persons including the respondents, and that she owed a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- to the respondents - HELD THAT - On perusal of the Judgment of the Trial Court as well the Appellate Court, it is opined that the petitioner has not made out any good ground to admit these revision petitions. The findings on facts cannot be disturbed. The Trial Court has not awarded sentence of imprisonment. In all these cases the petitioner has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment in case she defaults in paying the fine amount. Therefore, if she is serving the default sentence, it is always consecutive and therefore, benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. cannot be granted. There are no merits in the petition - petition dismissed.
Issues: Conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, defense of misuse of cheques, application of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for release from custody.
Analysis: The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) for dishonored cheques, despite her defense claiming misuse by the respondents. The Trial Court found her defense improbable based on her admission of indebtedness in an insolvency petition. The Appellate Court upheld this finding, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for revision petitions. The court affirmed the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that factual findings cannot be disturbed without merit. Regarding the petitioner's custody, her counsel argued for release under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), citing her two-year imprisonment for defaulting on fine payments. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the Trial Court did not impose a sentence of imprisonment but directed simple imprisonment for default in fine payment. As the default sentence is consecutive, the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Ultimately, the court dismissed all revision petitions, finding no merit in admitting them. Consequently, all pending applications related to the revision petitions were also disposed of accordingly.
|
