9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings recorded by the courts below. Thus, the conviction of the applicant recorded by the courts' below is hereby affirmed. Period of sentence - HELD THAT:- The applicant has already suffered more than 15 days of jail sentence out of two months SI and he has already deposited the compensation amount of ₹ 6.0 Lacs before the trial Court and now the complainant/respondent has no grievances with the applicant, therefore, it will be appropriate to reduce the custodial sentence of the applicant to the period already undergone by the applicant. This revision petition is partly allowed and the order of awarding compensation amount of ₹ 6.0 Lacs to the respondent/complainant is hereby affirmed, however, the custodial sentence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued two cheques bearing nos. 503970 dated 30/09/2013 and 503969 dated 01/10/2013 amounting to ₹ 2.0 Lacs. and 3.0 Lacs respectively. On presentation of the said cheques by the respondent in his bank account, same were dishonoured with a remark 'account closed'. Thereafter, notice was served upon the applicant for payment of the cheque amount, however, he did not pay the said amount within stipulated period, therefore, on 03/01/2014, the respondent has filed a private complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhabua, which was registered by the trial Court as Criminal Case No. 136/2014. 3. The trial Court read over the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Instruments Act, 1881. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Under these circumstances, he prays for rejection of the petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the statement of the complainant-Nanuram and documentary evidence available on record, it is duly proved that the applicant has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any error in convicting the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
