9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat no amount was due from the accused to the complainant on account of supply of any equipment. The accused was able to establish instances where products imported by the complainant in the name of the firm M/s Sony Impex were shown as sold to M/s Taurian Overseas; from M/s Taurian Overseas to M/s Xeon Infotech; from M/s Xeon Infotech to M/s Grafiti Infotech and the entire payment received in respect of such sale was routed back firstly into the account of M/s Xeon Infotech and from there to the account of M/s Taurian Overseas and further into the account of M/s Sony Impex - The defence of the accused that he was an employee of the complainant – receiving salary, in the form of salary and commission, was also established. Petition dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss. The books of account showed that an amount of ₹ 4,42,238/- was outstanding against the respondent. In respect of the goods received, the respondent-accused had issued a cheque dated 22.10.2004 for ₹ 4,42,238/- towards full and final settlement of the outstanding bills. Upon presentation of the said cheque, it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds; the same was re-presented after telephonic talk with the accused on 25.02.2014 but was again dishonoured; the complainant issued a legal notice on 11.03.2005 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and; since the amount was not paid within the statutory period, the complaint was preferred. 5. The defence set up by the respondent/accused was that no goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as aggrieved by the fact that the accused had been let off simply with two months simple imprisonment, and no fine had been levied. By the impugned judgment, the Sessions Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the accused and simultaneously dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/complainant. The appellate court has discussed the merits as follows: 7. The accused in his evidence has placed on record statement of account of Xeon Infotech and as per statement of account on 06.03.2003 a sum of ₹ 2 lac was deposited and this amount was withdrawn on next date and credited in the account of the complainant i.e. M/s. Soni Impex. The appellant/accused in his evidence has categorically stated that the product used to be bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same day the amount of ₹ 5,38,000/- was transferred in the account of M/s Soni Impex. Thus, it suggest that the version of the DW-1 is appears to be provable when the DW-1 was not cross examined by the complainant on these points. 8. No suggestion was given to the DW-1 that amount was not credited from the account of M/s Taurian Overseas and Xeon Infotech in the account of M/s Soni Impex. The testimony of DW-1 is not shattered in any manner by the complainant. Moreover, DW-1 has placed on record two counter foils which are proved on record as Ex. AW-1/7 and Ex. AW-1/8, which are in the handwriting of the complainant. No suggestion was given by the complainant to DW-1 that these counter foils are not in his handwriting. Moreover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument to show that any goods were supplied to M/s Taurian Overseas. It is hardly believable that without any bill, goods were supplied to M/s Taurian Overseas. No explanation was given that why pay slip and commission certificate was issued to Rajnish Behl, proprietor of M/s Taurian Overseas. The complainant has also not given any explanation why the account of M/s Taurian Overseas was being managed when he was out of Delhi. DW-1 was not cross examined on the documents produced by him. Not a single suggestion was given to DW-1 that these documents are forged and fabricated. No explanation was given by the complainant why amount of ₹ 2 lac was transferred from the account of M/s Taurian Overseas in the account of M/s Soni Impex. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the remark made by the first appellate court- that the defence of the accused had not been properly considered, is incorrect. 10. The principles applicable to grant of leave against a judgment of acquittal are well settled. The petitioner has to show that the judgment suffers from perversity or that there is clear mis-appreciation of evidence by the Court below. Merely because the appellate court may prefer a different view would not be a ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal as the presumption of innocence stands fortified by the judgment under decree. In this regard reference may be made to Guru Nanak Tractors vs. Swarn Singh, 2014 (3) RLR (CRI) 601. 11. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
