9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of ₹ 1,50,000/- and the cheque came to be issued towards the legally recoverable debt i.e., the amount due by the accused to the complainant as per Ex. P-8. The cheque on presentation, admittedly, was dishonoured and thereafter, legal notice came to be issued and there is no compliance of callings of notice. Therefore, all ingredients to attract offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. No doubt, the accused got herself examined as DW-1, wherein she tried to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under the provisions of section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the evidence adduced by the accused was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.2.2016 passed in CC No. 967/2014 on the file of the JMFC, V Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, whereby the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay fine of ₹ 1,60,000/- with default sentence of six months simple imprisonment and the entire amount is ordered to be paid as compensation which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 70/2016 by judgment dated 7.9.2016 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Judge in the first appellate court after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on merits by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is in this Revision Petition. 10. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner vehemently contended that both the courts have wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further contended that the presumption available under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not at all applicable to prove the consideration which has not been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate and the first appellate court. He also contended that Ex. P-8 Account statement is incorrec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eque on presentation, admittedly, was dishonoured and thereafter, legal notice came to be issued and there is no compliance of callings of notice. Therefore, all ingredients to attract offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record. No doubt, the accused got herself examined as DW-1, wherein she tried to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under the provisions of section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the evidence adduced by the accused was not sufficient to rebut the said presumption and therefore, the learned Trial Magistrate recorded an order of conviction for the accused for the offence punishable under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
