TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against accused Manpreet Singh on the allegations that the accused had borrowed a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- from the complainant and to discharge his said liability he had issued cheque no. 063841 dated 29.5.2013 in the sum of ₹ 2.50 lacs drawn on Bank of Punjab, Rajpura. That Bank of Punjab has since merged with HDFC Bank; that the complainant had presented the cheque with his banker for encashment but the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 5.6.2013 with the endorsement 'Account Closed'. The complainant had issued legal notice dated 26.6.2013 to the accused calling upon him to make payment of cheque amount within stipulated period of 15 days from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chased spare parts of tractor from the complainant in the year 2005 issuing a blank cheque as security for ₹ 20,000/-. However, he had paid the amount to the complainant after six months but the complainant did not return the cheque and misused the same. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 years and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. In this judgment the trial Magistrate had observed that accused had not examined any witness to prove its defence versio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d had challenged the said judgment of his conviction and sentence by way of filing an appeal but was unsuccessful there. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, who vide judgment dated 13.7.2017 had dismissed the appeal has observed as follows :- 11. Now coming to the plea of appellant-accused that he is innocent and the cheque in question issued by him is a security cheque. But, I am not convinced with the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant-accused. There is no sufficient evidence led by the appellant to prove these facts on the cord. It is the accused, who adopted this plea and it was highly incumbent upon him to prove these facts, however, in the present case from the above discussion of the evidence, it can be said that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have also guided myself with the ratio of judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and the proposition of law in these citations are not disputed, but, the same are not applicable to the case in hand and as such distinguishable. Now by way of filing the present petition, the accused-convict is challenging the judgments passed by the Court below. I have gone through such judgments and I do not find any legality or infirmity therein much less apparent on the face of such judgments. The judgments are result of proper appraisal of evidence and correct interpretation of law. There is no ground to upset those judgments while exercising a revisional jurisdiction either as regards conviction or sentence part. Therefore, finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
