9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Apex Court had observed that the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities and such an inference can be drawn not only from the material on record, but also with reference to the circumstances upon which the parties reply. The standard of reasonability is that of a prudent man. Before this Court as well, the Revisionists have not been able to agitate any ground creating a doubt in the case of the complainant about the manner in which the cheque had been issued by the Revisionists in discharge of their existing liability. It would not be out of place to observe that admittedly the cost of tour per person was Rs. 1,20,000/- which explains why Rs. 2,40,000/- were paid to the Revisionists, in respect of which the cheque was issued on account of the tour having been cancelled - the Ld. MM and Ld. ASJ have rightly observed that the Revisionist failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 and held that the cheque had been duly issued by Bhavna Chopra for and on behalf of the Revisionist Firm, in discharge of the Legal Liability. The second aspect agitated by the Revisionists is that Amit Chopra had no concern with the cheque in question. However, it is not in dispute th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, which has been upheld by the learned ASJ by judgement dated 25.07.2024 with the modification of the Order on Sentence to the extent that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as compensation to the respondent, within one month from the date of the Order i.e. 25.07.2024. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent/complainant booked a Holiday Tour package for Australia for two persons, which was scheduled for departure on 12.03.2014 at the cost of Rs. 1,20,000/- per person, i.e., for a total sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-. According to the complainant the sum of Rs. 1,36,340/- was paid in cash while the balance amount had been paid by cheque and thereby the complete amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was paid by the complainant to the Revisionists for the tour. 3. However, subsequently, the tour package was not arranged but the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was retained by the Revisionists. Consequently, the complainant sought refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- and eventually the Revisionist Bhavna Chopra issued a cheque No. 474613 for Rs. 2,40,000/- dated 13.03.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgement dated 04.01.2023 and Order on Sentence dated 21.01.2023. The Revisionist was sentenced on 21.01.2023 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a compensation to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo SI for a period of fifteen days. 11. An Appeal was preferred before the learned ASJ, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.04.2024 upholding the conviction, though the sentence was modified to the extent that the appellant Bhavna Chopra and Amit Chopra were directed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the respondent as compensation within one month from the date of Order failing which they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned conviction and sentence is bad in law and facts and is liable to be set aside. The complainant alleged to have paid a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-, but it is a concocted story as there is no reason why only a certain amount would be given by cheque, while the balance amount in cash as has been asserted by the complainant. It is claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een created to take an unfair advantage against the Revisionist. The Revisionist has also been consistent in claiming that the blank cheques were taken away from her under duress. 17. It is further argued that Legal Notice dated 01.07.2014 was never served upon the Revisionist as is evident from the admissions of the respondent in the cross-examination wherein he has stated that he had not sent any written intimation about the dishonour of the cheque which was otherwise conveyed to the accused persons. Admittedly, no written intimation in regard to dishonour of the cheques had been sent to the Revisionist and the service of Legal Notice has been manipulated by the complainant. 18. It is further submitted that the Revisionist Amit Chopra is unwell and is having a 70% heart issue and had not signed the cheque in question. There is no evidence whatsoever, to connect the Revisionist with the commission of offence. The impugned conviction and the sentence is, therefore, liable to be set aside. In addition, the Revisionist is entitled to compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for having been made to suffer mental anxiety, stress and trauma. 19. The respondent had put in appearance through the couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcibly and under duress taken the cheque in question which only had the signatures of Bhavna Chopra. The exact amount was not known as the cancellation and other charges were not determined. The complainant and his brother-in-law started abusing Bhavna Chopra and during this altercation, the brother-in- law of the complainant took away the cheque in question from the table of Bhavna Chopra. Pertinently, the Revisionist had failed to explain as to why the amount of Rs. 73,660/- had been returned to the mother of the complainant and if so was the defence, how and the manner in which the money was handed over to the mother. Aside from bald assertions, no cogent evidence has been led. The easiest way was to produce the account statement to show the debit in the name of the mother but no evidence what soever has been produced by the Revisionist. 27. The Revisionist has further contended that the from the bare perusal of the Cheque, it is apparent that there were different pens used for the signatures and the other details filled in the cheque, which created serious doubt about the cheque being genuinely given by the Revisionist. 28. No complaint in regard to the cheques having been take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m which is binding on all the partners of the Firm. 33. The third ground on which the impugned judgment has been challenged is that no valid Cheque Return Memo has been produced by the complainant. The perusal of the record shows that the cheque in question Ex.CW1/A dated 13.03.2014 got deposited in ICICI Bank by pay-in slip dated 11.06.2014 Ex.CW1/B. The cheque got rejected vide Rejection Memo Ex.CW1/C. It is correct that the said Rejection Memo neither mentions the cheque number nor the date, but it bears the stamp of the ICICI Bank. It is but natural that if the cheque got deposited on 11.06.2014, the dishonour had to be subsequent to it. 34. The date of dishonour has been stated by the complainant in his testimony as 12.06.2014. This also finds corroboration from the Legal Notice dated 01.07.2014 Ex.CW1/D sent by the complainant wherein it had been explained that the cheque had been presented twice i.e. on 13.03.2014 and again on 11.06.2014 on the request of the Revisionist, but on both occasions it got dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. 35. The Legal Notice got duly served on 09.07.2014. It has been explained in the complaint that the Legal Notice Ex.CW1/D had been sent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
