9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding in absence of any perversity. This Court finds that no perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The sentence of the petitioner is modified by limiting it to the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody and impose fine of Rupees one lakh upon the petitioner over and above the compensation amount which has already been fixed by the learned court below with a further condition that the petitioner would deposit the fine amount alongwith the compensation amount before the learned court below within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. If the amount is not so deposited within the said period, the petitioner would serve the sentence already imposed by the learned trial court. This petition is disposed of with modification of sentence. - Cr. Rev. No. 639 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2021 - HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. S. K. Laik, Advocate For the State : Ms. Niki Sinha, Advocate Through Video Conferencing Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the petitioner has submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, considering the facts and circumstances of this case the sentence of the petitioner be modified. She submits that the petitioner may be directed to pay some more amount as fine over and above the compensation amount within a stipulated time and the sentence be limited to the period already undergone. She submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for some time. She submits that at the stage of revision the petitioner had surrendered on 27.07.2012 and was directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2012. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that there is presumption in law that the cheque has been issued against a debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and over and above the presumption in law , the complainant had explained as to how the amount was payable to the complainant. It has come in evidence that the complainant had talked with the accused regarding purchase of land and the accused had shown photocopies of the documents regarding the land. The complainant ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n her account for encashment as Exhibit-2, the letter of State Bank of India CMPDI Branch, Ranchi dated 25.7.09 regarding cheque return unpaid as Exhibit-3, her signature as well as signature of her advocate on legal notice dated 26.8.09 as Exhibit- 4 and Exhibit-4/1 respectively and postal registry receipt regarding sending of legal notice to the accused as Exhibit-5. C.W. 1 complainant Chaitali Dutta during her evidence has also corroborated the aforesaid facts and stated that to return the money accused had issued four cheques, and she has filed this case for one cheque of ₹ 3 lacs which was bounced due to insufficient fund in the account of accused. He deposed in chief examination that aforesaid cheque (Exhibit-1) bears the signature of accused. During cross examination defence has not put any question to contradict the aforesaid fact. The documentary evidence as well as oral evidence given by the complainant shows that the necessary requirements regarding the time limit for prosecution of the offence u/s 138 of N.I Act has been complied by the complainant. She had issued legal notice after receiving the information regarding bouncing of the cheque under prescribed time l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d proved under statue u/s 138 of N.I. Act. C.W. 1 has herself stated that she gave rupees three lacs as an advance to the accused to purchase the land. After some time she came to know that the accused/appellant showed her the document regarding the land is forged and fabricated. Thereafter she requested the accused to return her money for which the appellant/accused issued a cheque bearing no. 115732 dt. 18.07.2009 for ₹ 3,00,000/-. When the complainant presented the cheque in the SBI, CMPDI Branch (Ranchi) but the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of accused. Thus, in view of the fact and circumstances above discussed I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to establish that the cheque for amount of rupees three lacs which was issued by the accused/appellant was for discharge of liability as payment. All the ingredients necessary established offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act has been established beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly the accused/appellant is found and held guilty for offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act. The learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2011. Considered the contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified by limiting it to the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody and impose fine of Rupees one lakh upon the petitioner over and above the compensation amount which has already been fixed by the learned court below with a further condition that the petitioner would deposit the fine amount (Rupees one lakh) alongwith the compensation amount (Rupees three lakhs) before the learned court below within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. If the amount is not so deposited within the said period, the petitioner would serve the sentence already imposed by the learned trial court. If the amount is deposited as per aforesaid time-frame, the bailors will be discharged of their liability under the bail bond and the entire amount is directed to be immediately disbursed to the complainant after due identification. 19. This petition is disposed of with aforesaid modification of sentence. 20. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed. 21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
