Tax Management India.Com

Home Page

Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (12) TMI 558

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

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pugned judgment and order on sentence call for any interference. The Trial Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. Findings of conviction cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. - CRL. REV.P.632/2016 - Dated:- 4-12-2017 - MS. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Jatin Gupta, Advocate. Respondents Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State with SI Sunder Singh from PS-Baba Haridas Nagar for R-1. Ms. Rakhi Dubey Adv. For R-2. MS. SANGITA DHINGR .....

X X X X X X X

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

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of ₹ 2,70,000/- to the complainant and in case of failure in paying the said amount, to further suffer SI for three months vide judgment dated 02.01.2015 and order on sentence dated 17.01.2015. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment on conviction and order of sentence of the Trial Court vide Crl.Appeal No.12/2016 before the Special Judge, (PC Act) CBI-03, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. The Appellate Court vide order dated 27.05.2016 affirmed the judgment and order .....

X X X X X X X

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

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amination. Further in his statement under section 315 Cr.P.C on Oath he stated as under:- "I know the complainant Sh. Amit Kumar as he was a friend of my daughter namely Seema. He used to visit my residence while I used to be away. " Hence from the above it is clear that there were close family relations between the petitioner and the complainant and the same can be safely presumed to be the underlying reason why the complainant would have advanced a personal loan of ₹ 2 Lakhs to .....

X X X X X X X

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

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the petitioner on 14.01.2013. However a complaint was filed by the petitioner on 26.06.2013 to SHO. There has been a clear lapse of 7 months in filing the complaint by the petitioner. The petitioner deposed that "I came to know that my cheques having got stolen only after receiving the summons from this Hon'ble Court." If the same is assumed to be true, the petitioner even then did not take any prompt action despite being aware o .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →