9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the record and the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no apparent illegality or infirmity in the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. This Court is not sitting in appeal and is dealing with the revision petition. It is a settled law that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court as well as by the appellate Court. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. Application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar and Jitender Kumar on 21.12.2004 and 25.02.2005. The petitioner signed a promissory note for a sum of ₹ 3,45,000/- and promised to return the loan amount till 21.05.2005. To repay the loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.739923 dated 01.02.2006 for a sum of ₹ 3,45,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks funds insufficient . The respondent no.2 sent a legal notice dated 19.06.2006 to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not make the payment. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. The complainant/respondent no.2 examined herself to prove her case. The complainant was cross-examined by the petitioner. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s argued that the complainant had duly established her case beyond reasonable doubt that loan of ₹ 3,45,000/- was taken by the petitioner from the respondent no.2/complainant and to discharge his liability, he had issued the cheque in question. It was further argued that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the same was dishonoured when presented for encashment. It was further argued that the petitioner had failed to make the payment of cheque amount despite receipt of legal notice. 7. To prove her case, the respondent no.2/complainant had examined herself and proved her affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, cheque in question as Ex.CW1/2, promissory note as Ex.CW1/1, cheque returning memo as Ex.CW1/3, advice sl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence led by them, we find substance in the plea urged on behalf of the complainant appellant to the extent that in spite of the admitted signature of the respondent accused on the cheque, it was not available to the respondent-accused to deny the fact that he had not issued the cheque in favour of the complainant for once the signature on the cheque is admitted and the same had been returned on account of insufficient funds, the offence under Section 138 of the Act will clearly be held to have been made out and it was not open for the respondent accused to urge that although the cheque had been dishonoured, no offence under the Act is made out. 12. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the judgments/orders passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
