9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sional application. 2. Mr. Himangshu De, learned Advocate appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that handwriting over the cheque in question is disputed. Name of Nepal Mahato, the complainant is appearing in the front page and the back page of the cheque and these two writings of the name Nepal Mahato is almost identical and is not tallying with the signature of the accused where he has signed his name allegedly issuing the cheque on 13.11.99. Learned Trial Court did not take any step for handwriting expert for verification of the handwriting or signatures and did not compare the signature of the complainant and accused. The accused petitioner did not issue the cheque at all on 13.11.99 and he was falsely implicated in this case. 3. Mr. De contended that in cross-examination the complainant Nepal Mahato as P.W. 1 admitted that first talk of business deal was taken in his house in the month of January-February, 2000. If the talk of business between accused and complainant was held in January-February, 2000, the question of issuing cheque by the accused on 13.11.99 does not arise at all. The evidence thus reveals that there was no business transaction or loan transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o dispute in signature cannot be considered by this Court which has been raised for the first time before the High Court. All the ingredients of fulfilling the requirements of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was established against the petitioner and the learned Courts below rightly held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to pay the fine. There was no evidence that there was no business transaction between the accused and complainant. The evidence is to be read on the whole and, if the evidence is construed properly, it would be clear that there was business transaction between accused and complainant and the complainant paid money to the accused when he was in need for money for the purpose of construction of his contractory business as he obtained some work order from Forest Department. The revisional application having no merit should be dismissed. 7. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both parties and perused the materials on record including the lower Court record and the evidence that was introduced in Court. The complainant's case was that the accused petitioner obtained some work order for construction of Forest Rest H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bauri, an officer of State Bank of India, Purulia together with the documents marked as Exhibits 1 to 5 clearly established and proved the complainant's case. After going through the handwriting of the cheque on Exhibit 1,1 do not find that there was any dispute in handwriting of the cheque. The front page of the cheque on close scrutiny clearly indicates that the name Nepal Mahato was written with same ink, pen and by same hand where the accused put his signature issuing the cheque. The name of Nepal Mahato appearing on the reverse side of the cheque does not appear to be same handwriting like the one which is on the front page of the cheque. Writing of the word 'N' and some other loops in the name of Nepal Mahato are different in the front page of the cheque with the name of Nepal Mahato appearing in the reverse of the cheque. Therefore, the submission of Mr. De that writing is disputed and same person wrote the entire matter particularly name of Nepal Mahato both at front and reverse page of cheque is not acceptable. 9. The single line in cross-examination of P.W. 1 that first talk of business deal was taken in January-February, 2000 cannot be regarded as sufficie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused and the learned Sessions Judge in appeal after considering the evidence and materials on record rightly affirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. 11. Production of papers of income tax is not a ground to disbelieve complainant's case and to throw his case out of the Court. It is the income tax Authority who may take action against the complainant, if the complainant did not furnish return properly before the income tax authorities showing correct income and expenditure. Merely for the failure to produce income tax papers by the complainant in the trial, the right of complainant to initiate a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for the dishonoured cheque cannot be curtailed. 12. The decision cited by Mr. De in Vinod Tanna v. Zaher Siddiqui reported in 2002 C Cr. LR(SC) 1034, is not at all applicable in the present proceeding. The said reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reveals that in the said matter the cheque was refused as signature of the drawer was incomplete. The facts of the reported case is clearly distinguishable from the present facts and circumstances. In the present case signature of the drawer i.e. acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
