TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natures of the accused-revisionist do not tally with his standard signatures given in the bank. The cheques admittedly belong to the accused-revisionist. The learned counsel for the revisionists contends that the cheque book of the company was stolen by the Muneem of the company regarding the same. However, no DDR or FIR was lodged with the police. Revision dismissed. - CRM No. 19257 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of ₹ 3,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days. The allegations against the present revisionists are that they borrowed a sum of ₹ 2 lakhs from the complainant (now deceased). Revisionist No. 2 issued three cheques, bearing No. 871244 dated 2.1.2011, 871245 dated 28.2.2011 and 87 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the signatures of revisionist No. 2 on all the cheques differ with his standard signatures. It is further urged that the complainant did not examine any handwriting expert in affirmative evidence. I am of the view that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not the conclusive proof. The cheques were returned by the bank with the remarks 'insufficient funds' and not with the remar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
