9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he complainant and the accused herein. CW3 at one point of time says that he does not know Pintu Saha and later he says Pintu Saha was also present along with him in the shop of the complainant when transaction has taken place. The evidence of CW3 is inconsistent and the evidence appears to be fishy. Mr. Pintu saha who was shown as witness by complainant was not examined before the trial court. There are several laches on the part of the complainant and the order of the trial court and lower appellate court not considering the fact of cheque being lost and GD entry made before the police station Exhibit B cannot be appreciated and this court has no hesitation to set aside the Judgment order passed by the trial court and further order of the lower appellate court confirming the order of the trial court is also set aside - Petition dismissed. - Criminal Petition 43 of 2018 And Criminal Revision Petition 27 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2022 - Hon ble Mr. Justice T. Amarnath Goud For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samar Das, Adv., Mr. T. D. Majumder, Adv., Mr. B. Debnath, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, PP, Mr. B. Debnath, Adv., Mr. R. Datta, PP, Mr. Samar Das, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mai Ch. Das both residents of Badarmokam (iii) Mr. Pintu Saha S/o Haripada Saha of North Sataria for the purpose of his personal need with a condition to repay the sum by 15th of June 2017 but was in vain. On being approached by the complainant on 12.06.2017 the accused-respondent issued a Cheque bearing No.997483 dated 12.06.2017 for an amount of ₹ 4,70,000/- only on State Bank of India, Udaipur Branch vide his account NO.10515470637 in the house of the complainant again in presence of (i) Sri Utpal Datta, (ii) Swapan Das and (iii) Pintu Saha. The complainant for encashing the same on said date had deposited the said cheque vide no.997483 dated 12.06.2017 for ₹ 4,70,000/- in his account 31455728000 with the State Bank of India, Udaipur Branch, Gomati Tripura. On 19.06.2017 the State Bank of India, Udaipur Branch returned the said cheque bearing no-997483 dated 12.06.2017 for ₹ 4,70,000/- issued by the accused with return slip to the complainant stating inter alia that due to Drawer s Sign Mismatch the cheque has been dishonoured. On 12.07.2017 the complainant through his Advocate got issued a demand notice to the accused by registered post demanding to pay th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complainant-petitioner. [9] It is the case of the complainant that the complainant and the accused know each other for business purpose and they had a friendly relation. The accused has taken a loan from the complainant of ₹ 4,70,000/- and the accused has issued a cheque bearing no-997483 dated 12.06.2017 against the said loan of ₹ 4,70,000/-. On 19.06.2017 the State Bank of India, Udaipur Branch returned the said cheque bearing no-997483 dated 12.06.2017 for ₹ 4,70,000/- issued by the accused person with a certificate to the complainant stating inter alia that due to Drawer s Sign Mismatch the cheque has been dishonoured. When the cognizance was taken by the trial court, it has ordered the accused to pay ₹ 4,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. In this regard, CW1 the complainant examined himself and CW 2 and 3 supported the case of the complainant and marked Exhibits 1 to 6. [10] On the other hand denying the very liability as well as the cheque being lost and accordingly complaint being filed before the Kakraban Police Station on 08.06.2016 with reference no. KKB-PS, DE No.10, the said complaint has been entered in the General Diary which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years ], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
