9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which was issued in discharge of the loan taken by the petitioner from the complainant. There are concurrent findings that all the basic ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been satisfied in the present case. There being no illegality or perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgments, the present criminal revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. - Cr. Rev. No. 151 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2021 - HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Samir Ranjan, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.2: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate ORDER Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the basic ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been fulfilled. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in connection with bouncing of cheque dated 07.06.2007 issued for a sum of ₹ 1,60,425/- in favour of the complainant. The complaint was filed on 04.07.2007 and was registered as Complaint Case No. C1 Case No.17 of 2007 and cognizance was taken under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Having received the summons, the accused appeared in the court and particulars of the offence alleged against the accused was explained to her on 11.10.2007 to whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss-examined. 8. The petitioner was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and had denied the fact that the loan of ₹ 1,60,425/- was taken by her from the complainant. 9. The learned trial court recorded that on earlier occasion, the petitioner has admitted receiving of loan amount from the complainant in writing and referred to Ext. 3 and 3/1. The petitioner had stated in her reply to the legal notice that she had taken a loan of ₹ 1,60,425/- from the complainant and held that the loan stood admitted from the reply to the legal notice itself. 10. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the debt was not established, is devoid of any merits in view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the complainant had forcibly got the cheque issued in his favour from the accused, even though the accused had told him that sufficient money was not in her account, whereupon, the complainant had said that he would withdraw the money after sufficient amount was deposited in the account, which was denied by these witnesses. This apart, CW - 4 Ganesh Lamay, who is the Branch Manager of the Bank, has fully proved the fact that the accused/appellant had the Bank A/c in his Bank and the cheque (Exhibit - 1) was issued by her and that it was dishonored due to insufficient fund in the account. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has fully established the charge against the appellant beyond all reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
