9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be returned with applicable interest. The record shows that the Respondent-Bank placed on record statement of the savings bank account of the Applicant with the Society as exhibit 34 and statement at exhibit 28 was also placed in support of the claim of the bank that the amount recoverable from the Applicant along with interest came to ₹3,60,910/-. Since the aforesaid documentary evidence was placed on record to support the oral evidence of the witnesses examined in support of the case of the Respondent-Bank, it becomes clear that the conclusion rendered by the Magistrate that the subject cheque was indeed for satisfying the said outstanding amount and therefore relatable to legal debt or liability, cannot be said to be erroneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Magistrate First Class, Margao, and the Sessions Court, Margao. This is a matter arising out of a complaint filed by the Respondent-Bank under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (said Act, for short). The Magistrate has convicted the Applicant for offence under the said provisions and imposed a sentence upon him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay compensation of ₹ 3,65,000/- to Respondent-Bank. It is undisputed that the cheque amount was ₹ 3,60,910/-. 3. It was the case of the Respondent-Bank, the original Complainant, that the Applicant had approached the said Respondent for a loan of an amount of ₹ 6,00,000/-. Since the Applicant was not a member of the Respondent-bank, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The Applicant resisted the claims of the Respondent-Bank as a result of which the matter went to trial before the Court of Magistrate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced him in the aforesaid manner. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant filed an Appeal before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2020. As a result, the Applicant is before this Court challenging the concurrent findings rendered against him. 7. Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, submitted that in the present case, the Respondent-Bank had failed to prove the basic requirement of the cheque having been issued for legal debt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iated by the Magistrate, while convicting and sentencing the Applicant and that the Sessions Court was also justified in dismissing the Appeal. 9. This Court has heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The case of the Respondent-Bank was that although the loan amount was disbursed for a particular purpose, the utilization of the same did not appear to be for the said purpose. There was reference made to certain RTO documents which were forged, due to which, the Respondent-bank became aware that immediate action was required in respect of the loan disbursed to the Applicant. The material on record demonstrates that an account of the Applicant was opened with the Respondent-Bank. 10. In this backdrop, the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the present case. 11. The Sessions Court took into consideration the aforesaid factors and correctly found that the Appeal filed by the Applicant deserved to be dismissed. 12. In view of the above, this Court finds that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below. Accordingly, the Revision Application is dismissed. 13. Consequently, amounts deposited by the Applicant before the Sessions Court during the pendency of the Appeal and before this Court during the pendency of the Revision Application, if any, shall be disbursed forthwith in favour of the Respondent-Bank. 14. Pending Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
