9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween herself and Rajiv, no other documents have been produced by the accused. This transaction does not establish that the said cheque was taken by the complainant and very interestingly, after receipt of the legal notice, the accused has not choosen to reply and no explanation is offered - the cross-examination of D.W. 1 itself disclose that she is already convicted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in a different case. She has also admitted that Rajiv has also lodged a complaint against her under Section 138 of N.I. Act as per Ex.D10. Hence, the defense raised by the accused is short of proving her case that the cheque has not been issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt so as to rebut the statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r short) challenging the judgment of conviction passed in C.C. No. 12485/2014 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and confirmed by LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A. No. 959/2016, whereby, both the Courts have convicted the accused for the offences under Section 138 of N.I. Act by imposing sentence of fine of ₹ 7,00,000/-, in default Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court. 3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case that the complainant and accused are known to each other since long time. On such acquaintance, the accused h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the revision petitioner/accused has filed appeal in Crl.A. No. 959/2016 and the learned LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge by judgment dated 13.09.2017 has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction. Being aggrieved by the these concurrent findings of convictions, this revision petition came to be lodged. 5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 6. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would contend that there is no relationship between the complainant and accused and the debt itself is not establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is fate of the complaint lodged by the accused. Further, this complaint itself is after initiation of the proceedings under Ex.P1. 8. The complainant has not disputed the cheque-Ex.P1 and her signature. Hence, statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is in favour of the complainant. The accused is required to rebut the statutory presumption by leading the cogent evidence on the basis of preponderance of probability. But, except asserting the transaction between herself and Rajiv, no other documents have been produced by the accused. This transaction does not establish that the said cheque was taken by the complainant and very interestingly, after receipt of the legal notice, the accused has not choosen to reply and no explan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
