9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1-State. 4. The present criminal revision application has been filed against the Judgement dated 05.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 08.02.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1876 of 2006 / T.R. No. 531 of 2012 was affirmed and the criminal appeal was dismissed. 5. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and a fine double of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n connection with the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and no illegality or perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for any interference under revision jurisdiction. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1-State supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on a Complaint being C.P. Case No. 1876 of 2006 presented on 24.11.2006 alleging inter-alia that both the parties were businessmen and were known to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... di to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. In course of trial, the Complainant examined altogether four witnesses in support of his case. C.W.-1 is Md. Naim, C.W.-2 is Md. Ashraf Ansari who is the Complainant himself, C.W.-3 is Arshad Ansari and C.W.-4 is Aeman Ansari who is the son of the Complainant. C.W.-2 exhibited the writing and signature of the petitioner on Cheque No.831577 dated 15.08.2006 as Exhibit-1, bank return memos dated 7.09.2006, 19.09.2006 and 18.10.2006 as Exhibits- 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively, Deposit slips of bank as Exhibits- 3, 3/1 and 3/2 respectively, Legal notice as Exhibit-4, signature of the petitioner on the acknowledgment as Exhibit-5, postal receipt as Exhibit-6 and Receipt of Courier serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hip between them and they have also supported the prosecution case. This Court finds that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant have clearly stated about the dishonour of the cheque, the return memo, legal notice, etc.. 14. This Court finds that the learned courts below also considered Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque and were of the view that it shall be presumed in favour of the Complainant, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Learned trial court held that the cheque was issued by the petitioner in favour of the Complainant for discharging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
