9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trial court as well as the session judge's court have rightly rejected the defence taken up by the accused and have rightly convicted the accused for the alleged guilt. I do not find any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the said finding of those two courts. The quantum of sentence ordered also being proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, there is no necessity for this court to interfere with the finding given by the trial court and the session judge's court - Revision dismissed. - Criminal Revision Petition No. 339 of 2011. - - - Dated:- 27-8-2020 - Dr. H. B. Prabhakara Sastry J. For the Petitioner : H. Mallan Goud For the Respondent : Javeed (S.) , amicus curiae JUDGMENT DR. H. B. PR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the accused in the trial court for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N. I. Act. 2. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held wherein the complainant got himself examined as PW1 and got marked documents from exhibits P1 to P6. The accused got himself examined as DW1 and got marked documents from exhibits D1, D1(a), D1(b) and D2. The trial court, after hearing arguments from both side and considering the materials on record, by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated July 13, 2009 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N. I. Act and sentenced him accordingly. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt the complainant had issued a legal notice as per exhibits P4 and P5, but he would contend that complainant himself was due to the accused in a sum of ₹ 1,95,019 as per exhibit D2. Further, at the request of the complainant, the accused had also paid in total, a sum of ₹ 1,00,000 to one Sri Ramesh Kumar. Thus, if at all any amount is due from the accused towards the complainant the same is only a sum of ₹ 1,03,596 after deducting ₹ 2,95,019 (i. e., ₹ 1,95,019 plus ₹ 1,00,000) from the cheque amount as per exhibit P1 which is ₹ 3,98,615. However, the trial court and the session judge's court failed to appreciate these aspects, but mechanically held the accused guilty for the alleged offence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came to be returned unpaid with the reason of insufficiency of funds as per exhibit P3 are all being concurrent finding on facts which have not been specifically disputed by the revision petitioner herein, they need not have to be re-appreciated again. Similarly, the finding of the trial court as well the session judge's court that the complainant had issued a legal notice as per exhibit P4 to the accused demanding the cheque amount of ₹ 3,98,615 from him which is documented at exhibits P4, P5, P6 and P7 also being a concurrent finding of those courts which are not seriously disputed in this petition, thus require no reappreciation. Similarly, the contention of the accused that complainant was due to him in a sum of ₹ 1,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voice dated November 2, 2006. Thus, as on November 2, 2006 the accused was said to be due in a sum of ₹ 3,98,615 to the complainant. Towards the payment of the same, the accused has issued the cheque for the said amount which is dated December 4, 2006, as per exhibit P1. Whereas, the alleged liability from the complainant towards the accused has arisen at a later date, i. e., on December 26, 2006 as could be seen in the invoice at exhibit D2. Thus, these two transactions are two different transactions and by the time the accused issued the cheque as per exhibit P1 to the complainant, there was a legally enforceable debt of the sum of the said cheque amount against the accused by the complainant. At that time, there was no counter liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither produce other cogent evidence in support of his contention or to examine said Sri Ramesh Kumar as his witness. Further, the alleged payment said to have been made to said Sri Ramesh Kumar is also at a later date than the date of the cheque at exhibit P1. Considering all these reasons, both the trial court as well as the session judge's court have rightly held that the defence of the accused that he had paid a sum of ₹ 1,00,000 to one Sri Ramesh Kumar at the behest of the complainant is not proved which is a properly reasoned correct finding. 13. Thus, both the trial court as well as the session judge's court have rightly rejected the defence taken up by the accused and have rightly convicted the accused for the all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
