9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 118 and 139 of the Act is rebuttal, by way of preponderance of probabilities either through direct evidence or through the material brought on record, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to rebut the said presumption. Mere denial of existence of debt is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. Further, the petitioner miserably failed to explain the circumstances under which Ex.P-2 was issued to the first respondent. That apart, there is no evidence as to how the promissory note (Ex.P-1) and the subject cheque (Ex.P2) went into the custody of the first respondent. When once the advancement of the amount and the issuance of Exs:P-1 and P-2, are not proved, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner miserably failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness on his behalf, but Ex.D-1 was marked. The learned XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, after hearing both parties and appreciation of the evidence brought on record, convicted the petitioner and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of ₹ 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months vide judgment dated 17.06.2010 passed in C.C.No.371 of 2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.204 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing, was pleased to dismiss the appeal, confirming the judgment of the Court below vide judgment dated 12.10.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject amount was advanced, PW-1 sold a plot and received a sale consideration more than ₹ 6 lakhs. PW-2 deposed that he is a resident of the same locality and resides nearby the house of the first respondent. He is acquainted with the petitioner as well as the first respondent. On 21.05.2007 in his presence, the petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹ 2 lakhs towards hand loan from the first respondent and the petitioner executed promissory note in favour of the first respondent, on which PW-2 signed as witness. In the cross examination, he also stated that when he went to the house of the first respondent, the petitioner and his friend were present in the house of the first respondent. Though PW-2 was cross examined, nothing has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
