9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner now estopped from raising such plea only to frustrate the claim of the complainant. The accused petitioner has miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and the learned trial court has on due appreciation of entire matter on record has came to a proper finding about the guilt of the accused. There appears no irregularly in the order passed by the court below. While maintaining the sentence under Section 139 NI Act the same is converted to a fine of twice the cheque amount i.e. ₹ 3,70,000/- in default SI for six months. Amount of fine be given to the complainant as compensation. The complainant is hereby directed to deposit the amount before the trial court within a period of two months from today ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se person and the accused assured to pay the balance amount given in the cheque after few months and he asked the complainant not to deposit the cheque immediately. The complainant also directed by the accused person did not deposit the cheque immediately and only presented the cheque for clearance on 10.04.2008 to the banker of the accused person. The cheque was dishonoured which was intimated to the complainant on 06.05.2008. Having no alternative, the complainant after serving the legal notice upon the respondents filed the complaint case before the court under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. The accused petitioner contested the case and denied the charge under Section 138 of NI Act. 5. In support of the case, the complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case. 8. The other witness, Dr. Ajit Kumar Bora/PW-2 and Pallab Deka/PW-4 supporting the contention of the complainant has submitted that PW-2 written the agreement between the parties regarding sale of said vehicle for an amount of ₹ 3,35,000/- and the transaction between the parties also made in presence of both of them i.e. PW-2 and PW-4 like cash payment and delivery of post dated cheque amounting to ₹ 1,85,000/- for the remaining balance amount. 9. The bank officials i.e. the Manager of Assam Gramin Bikash Bank/PW-3 has also supported that the cheque in question (exhibit-3) that was issued by their bank in the account number of the accused person, while presenting the bank for encashment, the same was bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utta/DW-1, Sri Simanta Bordoloi/DW-2 and Nirud Handique-DW-3 has given a contradictory statement that although the accused issued post dated cheque but no payment was due on the part of the accused person. 12. The accused, however, never challenged the execution of the agreement vide exhibit-1 where there is a stipulation that accused had delivered two post dated cheques to the complainant one for ₹ 20,000/- and another for ₹ 1,85,000/-. The witnesses of the complainant has also approved that the accused delivered two post dated cheques to the complainant. On the other hand, the accused has also never challenged the execution of the cheque and the signature thereof but has failed to prove that he has paid the amount und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the agreement and he has already made part payment towards purchase of said vehicle cannot be permitted to raise the plea that the complainant being not owner of the vehicle is not entitle to get the remaining part of the amount. By his conduct itself the petitioner now estopped from raising such plea only to frustrate the claim of the complainant. The accused petitioner has miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and the learned trial court has on due appreciation of entire matter on record has came to a proper finding about the guilt of the accused. There appears no irregularly in the order passed by the court below. The hard earned money of a person has been denied by such evasive plea of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
