TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding payment of interest to the petitioner. In the cross-examination of CW-1, it was suggested that payment of ₹ 3.5 lacs was given to the petitioner in 2007. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement altogether different defence has been taken by the petitioner. He came up with the plea that he had given four cheques to the complainant and only one of them was signed by him. The said cheque was not presented by the complainant till date. He further stated that he had taken an amount of ₹ 3.5 lacs from the complainant and it was returned along with interest on 10.01.2009. The petitioner, however, has failed to place on record any document, whatsoever regarding the taking of loan of ₹ 3.5 lacs and its return along with interest. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ested by the complainant/respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admitted position is that a complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner. In the complaint, the respondent averred that in the discharge of legally enforceable liability, the petitioner had issued a cheque for the sum of ₹ 21.5 lacs bearing No 978785 dated 28.03.2010 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Dev Nagar, New Delhi in his favour. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds . Despite issuance of legal notice dated 31.5.2010, the petitioner failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time. The respondent examined himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. dated 1.5.2012, it was the defence of the petitioner that he had taken a loan of ₹ 3.5 lacs from the complainant in June-July, 2007. In lieu of granting of loan, the complainant had obtained the impugned blank signed cheque and an affidavit from him. The loan was granted at a monthly interest @ 5% and the interest was paid upto July, 2009. It could not be paid subsequently due to loss in the business. He, thereafter, tried to settle the dispute with the complainant but in vain. Apparently, there was transaction between the petitioner and the respondent way back in 2007. 6. The respondent filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.CW- 1/A) and reiterated the version given in the complaint. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007. The petitioner has given contradictory statements in this behalf. It is not clear as to how much amount was advanced by the respondent to the petitioner in 2007. In response to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. it was claimed that amount of ₹ 3.5 lacs was given in the month of June/July, 2007. The petitioner did not claim if the whole amount was returned in 2009. It was merely stated that interest @ 5% per month was given to the petitioner till July, 2009. No documents, whatsoever, have been placed on record regarding payment of interest to the petitioner. In the cross-examination of CW-1, it was suggested that payment of ₹ 3.5 lacs was given to the petitioner in 2007. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement altogether different d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 21.50 lacs to the complainant; default sentence being Simple Imprisonment for six months. It is informed that the petitioner is not a previous convict and has already undergone substantial period of substantive sentence. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence order is modified and the default sentence for non-payment of fine/compensation would be Simple Imprisonment for three months. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed. 13. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 14. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of 15. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with the copy of the order. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
