9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h amount being received from the sale of a particular property between the evidence of the respondent and his mother cannot be a ground to discard the defence. Petition dismissed. - CRL.L.P. 272/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2018 - MS. MUKTA GUPTA J. Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Adv. Respondent Represented by: Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Ms. Anuradha Pandey, Advs. MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Crl.M.A. 8282/2016 For the reasons stated in the application delay of 74 days in filing the leave to appeal petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 272/2016 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment 19th December, 2015 acquitting the respondent for offence p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Singh, Window Operator of Central Bank of India as DW-2, his mother as DW-3 and Surender @ Sunder as DW-4. 4. The defence taken by the respondent in the application under Section 145(2) Cr.P.C. as also the cross-examination of the complainant was that on 13th July, 2012 a sum of ₹2 lakhs was paid to the petitioner in the presence of his mother DW-2 and Surender @ Sunder DW-4 and the petitioner returned the documents relating to the property and promised to return the security cheques within 2-3 days. However, instead of returning the said cheques he manipulated those cheques and filed the complaint case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court submits that the claim of the respondent of return of the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;2 lakhs in cash to the complainant and thereafter the complainant has given certain documents to the accused, regarding which the accused has later on told to me that the documents were earlier handed over by him to the complainant. At the same time, the accused demanded back his cheque or cheques from the complainant, however, the complainant has refused to return the same by stating that he would return the cheque(s) after payment of some outstanding amount which remained unpaid on account of interest on the loan for a certain period. XXXXX by Sh. Gulshan Gupta, counsel for the complainant. I do not remember the exact date, month year, however, as far as I remember it is during the month of june or july when accused called me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss also that the money in cash was returned and the respondent repeatedly asked for the cheques issued by him which the complainant refused to return stating that he would return the cheques after the payment of some outstanding amount which remained unpaid on account of interest on the loan for a certain period was cleared. 9. Testimonies of the defence witnesses have not been shaken in cross-examination. Merely because there is a contradiction in the cash amount being received from the sale of a particular property between the evidence of the respondent and his mother cannot be a ground to discard the defence. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is a plausible view warranting no interference. Leave to appeal is thus declined. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
