9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-Inspector of Police and marked his compliant to the Sub-Inspector of Police, as Ex.D.1. From the evidence of D.W.1, this Court finds that on receipt of the complaint, Ex.D.1, summon was issued to the revision petitioner which was marked as Ex.D.4. Since he did not appear for enquiry, the complaint was closed and the same has been informed to him - the defence theory of lost cheque, has no legs to stand. Revision petition dismissed. - Crl.R.C(MD)No.151 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2018 - Dr. G. JAYACHANDRANJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. K. A. Raama Krishnan For the Respondent : Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar ORDER This Criminal Revision case is filed praying to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned second Additional D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The first appellate Court, on reappreciation of the evidence, has found that the appellant/revision petitioner is guilty and confirmed the judgment and conviction of the Court below. 5.Aggrieved by that, the accused/revision petitioner has preferred this criminal revision case on the ground that the Courts below have erroneously concluded that the cheques were issued to discharge legally enforceable debt, while there is no substantial material to prove it. The non-production of the income tax assessment by the complainant, ought to have taken note of by the Courts below. The Courts below ought to have considered that huge amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- has been given, without receiving any supportive documents, except three cheques, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. Statutory notice dated 10.03.2015 was issued through lawyer. Notice was received by the revision petitioner on 11.03.2015. The revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount or replied to the statutory notice. 9.Thus, it is clear that when opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to reply he did not avail that opportunity, but kept quiet till the complainant lodged the complaint before the Magistrate. Thereafter, as a defence he has pleaded that the cheques were stolen and he gave a complaint to the police. In support of that, he has also examined D.W.1, one Mr.Ravikumar, Sub-Inspector of Police and marked his compliant to the Sub-Inspector of Police, as Ex.D.1. Further, from the evidence of D.W.1, this Court finds t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
