TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he alleged offence. As in full agreement with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned District and Sessions Court, Vadodara. In result, present Criminal Revision fails both on law and facts and the same deserves fate of rejection only. Hence, present application is hereby dismissed. - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 782 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2017 - MR. Z.K.SAIYED, J. FOR THE APPLICANT : MR SANDIP M PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA, ADVOCATE, MS. MONALI BHATT, APP, ORAL ORDER 1. By way of present Criminal Revision Application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the order of acquittal dated 30.10.2015 passed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 359264 for ₹ 57,000/- dated 17.03.2007, which was returned on 09.04.2007 with an endorsement of account closed. 2.1 It is the case of the applicant that the applicant issued notice, however, the same was returned with endorsement that receiver was outside and respondent-accused did not pay the amount of ₹ 57,000/- which was demanded by notice dated 03.05.2007. Therefore, the applicant preferred criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the learned Senior Civil Judge and Chief JMFC, Baroda. The learned trial Court vide order dated 22.09.2014, convicted the respondentaccused and sentence to undergo six months with fine of ₹ 70,000/-,in default, simple imprisonment for further one month. The said order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cross-examination and oral version of the complainant. Further, from the document at Exh.39 to 51, it is not crystal clear that respondent-accused has taken amount on credit and therefore, on perusal of the documentary evidence, it appears that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the present respondent No.1-accused from the charges levelled against him. 6. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent-State argued that from the evidence itself, the respondent-accused has rebutted the presumption under the provisions of law and therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent-accused. 7. Heard the submissions advanced by learned advocates. Observations made by the learned trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it clearly appears that vouchers were written on the same day. Though it is undisputed that vouchers were in the custody of the complainant, it has not been mentioned about these vouchers in the complaint, notice and affidavit. The accused has taken defence of having fabricated these bogus vouchers later on. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid vouchers are not believable vouchers. The defence of accused does not get corroboration. Looking to the writing of the voucher, defence of accused gets corroboration. It is clearly proved that amount of aforesaid voucher is not transaction amount mentioned in the complaint. 18) It becomes clear from the evidence of the complainant that complainant has not produced any evidence in respect of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank account. The fact that accused gave ₹ 1,20,000/- to the complainant for the business of bricks gets corroboration. The complainant was doing business of bricks. He had been running business by name of Sona Trading and the said fact is acceptable. Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that accused gave ₹ 1,20,000/- to the complainant for the business. It can be believed that blank cheque bearing signature is required to be given in partnership, if required. As discussed above, it is not proved that accused legally owes something to the complainant. It does not appear that aforesaid cheque was given towards legal liability. The Defence has succeeded in rebutting presumption through cross examination. The complainant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tten as per the instruction and consent of the accused. It cannot be considered that it is proved that said cheque has been received towards legal debt as it bears signature. It is proved through cross examination that the cheque has not been issued for payment of ₹ 1,20,000/- which is mentioned in the complaint. The learned Magistrate has not properly evaluated cross examination and evidence of the complainant. He has erred in evaluation of the same. Therefore, there are sufficient, justified and reasonable reasons for interfering in the findings and reasoning of learned Magistrate. Under these circumstances, following final order is passed giving affirmative reply to issue no. 1 and 2. 8. I have minutely perused the oral and doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
