9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no reliance could be placed on Exhibit-A by the petitioner, but the learned trial court has fully considered the contents of Exhibit-A and found that the same could not help the petitioner in any manner. This Court finds that the petitioner has failed to discharge his initial burden to prove that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any liability and the petitioner could not discharge the said burden even by referring to Exhibit-A. This Court is of the considered view that the basic ingredients for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were duly satisfied and the learned court below has not committed any error in rejecting the plea of the petitioner based on exhibit-A - criminal revision petition is dismissed. - Cr. Rev. No. 598 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2021 - HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda , Advocate For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy , A. P. P. For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Awanish Shankar , Advocate ORDER Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or liability or any legally enforceable dues. The learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant has taken a plea that a friendly loan was given to the petitioner, but the petitioner had adduced evidence to show that the complainant was a petty contractor under the petitioner. Arguments on behalf of the opposite party 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the learned trial court has appreciated the Exhibit-A and recorded its independent finding on the said document and the plea of the petitioner was rejected by the learned court below by a well-reasoned judgement. He also submits that there is no scope for reappreciation of evidence in the revisional jurisdiction and to come to a different finding. He submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements of conviction of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that merely because the complainant is alleged to have stated that it was a friendly loan that does not absolve the petitioner of his liability under the cheque as there is legal presumption that the cheque once issued the same is issued in discharge of existing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submit that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt. The case of the petitioner was that the Exhibit-A was under the writing of the complainant wherein it was mentioned that the complainant was working as a petty contractor under the present petitioner which was a work of P.W.D. department. It was also mentioned in the said Exhibit-A that the petitioner was taking the cheque dated 10.04.2008 and after the completion of the work, receipt of the payment and final settlement of accounts, the complainant would present the cheque for encashment. On the basis of this document, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that it was merely a proposal from the side of the complainant that after the completion of work, the cheque was to be encashed and accordingly, the cheque cannot be said to have been issued in discharge of any debt. 13. The learned trial court duly considered the Exhibit-A and found that the same did not contain the signature of the petitioner so as to prove that there was any agreement between the parties in connection with presenting the cheque. The learned trial court also found that nothing was mentioned in Exhibit-A as to whether the payment was to be m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant as well, its content has been thoroughly discussed by the learned trial court and after discussing its content, the learned trial court has clearly recorded that the Exhibit-A does not help the petitioner in any way whatsoever. This Court finds that even if Exhibit-A is taken into consideration, the same is admittedly not signed by the petitioner and is signed by the complainant, who claimed himself to be the petty contractor of the petitioner for the work which was allotted to the petitioner by P.W.D. department. From the perusal of the impugned judgements (Exhibit-A and evidence of P.W. 2), it appears that there was business relationship between the petitioner and the complainant and the complainant was executing the work as petty contractor. Further as per Exhibit-A the cheque of Rs. One Lakh was to be presented upon completion of work as and when the petitioner would receive the payment and account would get settled. The learned trial court has held that Exhibit- A was only a proposal from the side of the complainant, but there being no signature of the petitioner, it could not be said that the petitioner and the complainant had entered into any agreement pursuant to Exhib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
