TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Execution of Ext. P1 cheque by the accused was proved by the evidence of PW1. The revision petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act in any manner. The courts below have properly appreciated the evidence of PW1 and the documents marked on his side and reached the correct conclusion. Therefore, conviction of the revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondents : BY ADV. SRI. P. K. MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) AND MR P. P. SRI. C. K. PRASAD ORDER Narayana Pisharadi, J The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C No. 884/2012 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad. Conviction entered and sentence imposed on him by the courts below under Section 138 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re marked. No evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner. 4. The trial court found that the first respondent succeeded in proving that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and accordingly, found him guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as compensation to the first respondent. 6. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the first respondent. 7. On a perusal of the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court, I find that there is no impropriety, illegality or error warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Execution of Ext. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
