Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Bhoop Singh Versus State & Anr.

2017 (12) TMI 558 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Dishonour of cheques - offence under NI Act - petitioner has stated in his defence that the two cheques as alleged to have been issued to the complainant for discharge of his legal liability was in fact stolen by the complainant from the house of the petitioner as he was on regular visiting terms - delay in lodging the complaint - Held that:- Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant in the present case had lodged his complaint on 24.08.2012; the petitioner appeared before the Trial Cou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aware of the fact that a complaint has been lodged against him by misusing his stolen cheques. The petitioner approached the police authorities only after seven months. Therefore from the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, it is quite apparent that the said complaint was a clear afterthought on the part of the petitioner to create a fictious defence in his favour. - Therefore for the reasons set out above, it is of the considered view that the on no count does the im .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

A SEHGAL J. 1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.‟) assailing the judgement dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 12/16, whereby the judgement dated 02.01.2015 and order on sentence dated 17.01.2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld. 2. Factual matrix emerging from the record is that, a complaint was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the account of one Inder Singh. The complainant further stated that in order to discharge his personal liability, the petitioner issued a Cheque bearing No.394512 dated 05.07.2012 for a sum of ₹ 2 Lakhs, which when presented for encashment on 05.07.2012 was returned unpaid for the reasons Account Blocked . Thereafter a legal demand notice dated 30.07.2012 was served upon the petitioner. However even despite the said notice, the petitioner did not make any payment to the complainant and he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tement of accused/petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied his liability towards the complainant and deposed that his two signed cheques were stolen by the complainant. He also denied the service of legal demand notice upon him. No other witness was examined by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in CC.No.3525/41 under Section 138 of the N.I Act and has been directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for five months, pay a compensat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present Revision Petition. 5. Mr. Jatin Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgement of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is bad in law and is based on conjectures and surmises; that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused/petitioner beyond reasonable doubt; that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are material contradictions in the test .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner received the said notice; that the petitioner was neither the authorized signatory nor was he legally liable to discharge any debt or liability towards the complainant; that in view of the above the petitioner be acquitted of the charges levelled against him and the impugned judgement on conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State strongly opposed the present revision petition filed by the petitioner and sub .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

other as both the parties have deposed similarly to this effect. The complainant/Amit Kumar categorically deposed before the Trial Court as under:- "My wife and daughter of accused was working together at same place....... It is also correct that Seema was regularly visits at my house. It is correct that my wife was also regularly visited Seema's house and sometime, I picked my wife from the house Seema " The petitioner/Bhoop Singh did not dispute the said fact during his cross-ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has stated in his defence that the two cheques as alleged to have been issued to the complainant for discharge of his legal liability was in fact stolen by the complainant from the house of the petitioner as he was on regular visiting terms. On the other hand, the complainant deposed that a loan of ₹ 2 Lakhs was advanced to the petitioner from the bank account of Raj Kala (relative of the petitioner) through a cheque bearing No.038785 dated 12.10.2011 and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

discharge of his liability. The petitioner has also deposed that "My account has been dead since the very beginning". Despite having said so, the petitioner has not tendered any reasonable explanation as to why he had kept the blank signed cheques at his house when his account was already closed. Hence the plea raised by the petitioner does not inspire confidence. 10. The petitioner has further contended that the legal demand notice/Ex CW-1/C was never received by him. As per records, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itioner in the ordinary course of postal business, lies in favour of the complainant. Moreover the petitioner has not led any evidence before the Trial Court to prove the contrary. 11. The petitioner has also urged in support of his defence that in respect of the stolen cheque, the petitioner had also lodged a complaint. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant in the present case had lodged his complaint on 24.08.2012; the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on 09.11.2012; and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.