9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was any legal debt or liability against the respondent/accused. The learned Appellate Court has found that the agreement for providing services was terminated immediately and, therefore, the demand was made for return of the cheque to the petitioner/ revisionist. The Appellate Court has rightly found that the judgment on conviction and sentence was unsustainable and, therefore, the same has rightly been set-aside. This court does not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, this revision stands dismissed. Both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed. - CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 590/2022 & CRL.M.As. 18373-74/2022 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi. On 10.10.2014, the petitioner was informed by his bank that the cheque in question is not encashed and dishonoured with the reason payment stopped . The cheque returning memo is dated 10.10.2014. The petitioner/complainant company issued legal notice dated 08.11.2014. Since no payment was made by the respondent and reply dated 09.12.2014 was sent denying the liability, therefore, the petitioner company filed complaint case against the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate after recording pre-summoning evidence, took cognizance and directed for issuance of summons against the respondent. The respondent after entering her appearance was served with notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and she ple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner/complainant has preferred two revision petitions before this court. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and perused the record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and improper and the same has been passed in ignorance of the settled legal position. According to him, the respondent kept on changing her defence. He also stated that during recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent alleged that an order was placed with the revisionist but at the stage of filing of an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act and during cross-examination, her defence was that no order was placed with the revisionist. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
