9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore there is valid service of legal notice upon the accused. Thus, the last phase of argument canvassed by the learned amicus curiae for the petitioner alleging non service of notice upon the accused is also not acceptable. The impugned Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court - Revision Petition dismissed. - CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 142 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2020 - THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE RESPONDENT : DR.J.S. HALASETTI, AMICUS CURIAE ORDER The petitioner was the accused in the Court of learned XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court) in C.C. No.17510/2005 who was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act'). 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that the accused had borrowed a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- from her on 07.03.2004 as loan for the purpose of purchasing a building property. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as amicus curiae for the respondent in the matter. Similarly, since the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also remained absent on a few dates of hearing, this Court, by its detailed Order dated 13.08.2020 appointed learned counsel Sri Amit Deshpande as amicus curiae for the revision petitioner. 6. Heard arguments of the learned amicus curiae for the revision petitioner as well as the learned amicus curiae for the respondent who are physically present in the Court. 7. The point that arises for my consideration is, whether the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Session Judge's Court is incorrect and suffers with any illegality or perversity, warranting interference at the hands of this Court? 8. Learned amicus curiae for the revision petitioner in his arguments submitted that no reasonable opportunity was given to the accused for the cross-examination of complainant / PW-1 in the Trial Court. As such, the matter deserves to be remanded giving an opportunity to the accused to further cross-examine the complainant. The said submission was vehemently opposed by the learned amicus curiae for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2007, PW-1 and her counsel were present. However, no progress was made in the matter from the accused side. The matter was adjourned to 12.04.2007 for the cross of PW-1. On 12.04.2007 though PW-1 was present, the accused had remained absent and no cross examination was done. Matter was posted to 25.04.2007. On 25.04.2007, once again the accused filed an application under S.311 Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed on a cost of ₹ 500/- and the matter was posted to 09.05.2007. On 09.05.2007, PW-1 and her counsel were present. However, on the pretext of settlement, once again the matter was adjourned to 31.05.2007. On 31.05.2007, PW-1 and her counsel were present but no progress was made in the case and it stood adjourned to 14.06.2007. On 14.06.2007 also the same thing was repeated and though PW-1 was present, no progress was made and the matter was adjourned to 26.06.2007. On 26.06.2007, Further cross- examination of PW-1 was taken as 'nil' and the matter was posted for arguments on 06.07.2007. On 06.07.2007, at the request of the accused side, for arguments, the matter was posted to 11.07.2007. On 11.07.2007, the arguments were heard and the matter was l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant and the cheques were encashed by the accused. Thus, the undenied evidence of PW-1 corroborated by her bank account details at Exs.P9 and P10 clearly establish that the accused had availed the loan of ₹ 6,00,000/- from the complainant through two cheques of ₹ 3,00,000/- each. Therefore the argument of the learned amicus curiae for the petitioner that there was no creditor and debtor relationship between the parties is also not acceptable. 12. The last leg of argument of learned amicus curiae for the petitioner was, that there was no service of notice demanding the payment of the cheque amount, upon the accused after the dishonour of the cheque. In that regard, learned amicus curiae submitted that in the very complaint itself, the complainant has stated that the legal notice sent to the accused returned unserved as not claimed. Therefore there is no service of notice. Per contra, learned amicus curiae for the respondent in his arguments submitted that the complainant as PW-1 in her evidence has stated that notice was sent to the accused both under 'Registered Post Acknowledgement Due' and 'certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
