9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised - Both the courts below erred in holding the accused- petitioner guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Decided against petitioner. - CRR No.849 of 2016 (O&M), CRR No.2017 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 21-11-2017 - Mr. Kuldip Singh, J. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patter, Advocate for the Respondent. Kuldip Singh, By this common judgment, I shall dispose of two connected cases i.e. CRR No.849 and 2017 of 2016, arising out the same judgments passed by both the courts below. 1 of 7 Brief facts of the case are that according to the complainant, who happens to be Income Tax and Sales Tax Practitioner, he advanced a loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the accused-petitioner, reduced the substantive sentence from simple imprisonment for one year to simple imprisonment for 2 of 7 six months. However, the compensation amount was maintained. Against the said order, the accused-petitioner has filed CRR No.849 of 2016, challenging his conviction, whereas the complainant has filed CRR No.2017 of 2016, for setting aside the judgment dated 20.02.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Palwal, regarding reduction in the sentence and restoring the order of sentence dated 09.02.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the original case file. A careful scrutiny of the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -petitioner. He never maintained accounts of his payments. He also claimed that he had sold a flat on 13.06.2010 and had also withdrawn ₹ 5,00,000/- on 15.06.2010. When he was further cross-examined, he admitted that the amount of `15,00,000/- in words and figures on the cheque was filled in by him and the date i.e. 04.03.2012 was also filled in by him. He also disclosed that the cheque was given earlier to him by the accused-petitioner, stating that whenever he would have the payments, the complainant should fill in the same. There is a difference of 10-15 days in giving cheque and filling in the blank cheque. He also admitted that the income tax returns of accused- petitioner for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 were filed by him, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the amount in words and figures as well as date was filled in by the complainant in his own handwriting. It falsifies the claim of the complainant that the cheque was handed over to him on 04.03.2012. The complainant had fiduciary relationship with the accused- petitioner. Therefore, heavy burden was on the complainant to prove that he had advanced the loan and that blank cheque for the same was given to him. The complainant is an income tax practitioner and he knows that whenever loan is advanced to anybody, receipt has to be obtained and that such heavy amount is to be advanced only through a cheque or demand draft or RTGS. The accused-petitioner was the client of the complainant and they were having professional relationship. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
