9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act (for short 'Act'). 2. The petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, constraining him to file the instant revision. 3. It is vehemently argued by Shri Balram Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse inasmuch as they have relied upon the untrustworthy evidence led by the complainant-respondent and, therefore, judgments should be set aside. In addition thereto, he would argue that the cheque was issued by the petitioner under compromise and, therefore, the same cannot be considered to be a new liability so as to furnish a cause of action in favour of the respondent and in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 13. In State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu, AIR 1979, SC 663, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including Akalu Aheer vs. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973, SC 2145, held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that "judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot to lightly exercise the revisional jurisdiction at the behest of a private complainant. 17. In State of Karnataka vs. Appu Balu, AIR 1993, SC 1126 = II (1992) CCR 458 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. 18. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 26 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint." 19. In Kaptan Singh and others vs. State of M.P. and another, AIR 1997 SC 2485 = II (1997) CCR 109 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Supreme Court held as under: "The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment." 6. In order to see whether there is any perversity in the judgments and findings recorded by the learned Courts below, it would be necessary to look into the complaint as also the evidence that has come on record. 7. In the complaint fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand of the cheque amount. The notice was duly served upon the petitioner on 28.06.2012, but he failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period. 8. In order to prove his case, the respondent appeared as CW-1 and in his statement duly supported/corroborated the averments made in the complaint. Even though, the respondent was cross-examined at length, but nothing contrary could be elicited therefrom. He denied that petitioner had paid Rs. 1,35,000/- to him in cash on 09.02.2012 and further denied that three cheques were issued by the petitioner in his favour as security. He further denied that the petitioner did not owe any liability to make the payment of the cheque amount to him. The statement of the respondent is duly co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties and thereafter an agreement was entered by and between the parties in terms whereof, it was agreed that if a cheque of Rs. 5,02,050/- is issued, then the complaint petition would be withdrawn. Consequently, one of the Directors issued a cheque for the said sum on 29.07.2000 which on presentation was returned on 29.01.2001 with the remark "insufficient fund". 11. It was in this background that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the second cheque that was issued by one of the Directors for the purpose of arriving at a settlement was not issued in discharge of the debt or liability of the company of which the appellants therein were said to be Directors. It was further held that there was only one transaction between the earlier Dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
