9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005 , the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. 2. The revision petitioner suffered concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The case of the complainant is that, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from him on 25.04.2001 for a legally enforceable debt and issued Ext.P1 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the proof of hire purchase agreement is not sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 5. On going through the evidence of PW1, it is brought out in evidence that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the complainant on 25.04.2001 and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 25.05.2001. The said cheque on presentation was dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient funds' in the account of the accused. Ext.P4 demand notice was issued right in time, which was accepted by the accused. However, the amount was not repaid as demanded. Once Ext.P1 cheque is proved to be issued, it carries statutory presumption of consideration. Thus, the onus is on the respondent to disprove the presumption a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort before this Court stating that the revision petitioner/accused was 78 years old and was totally bedridden then. It was also reported that the revision petitioner had no property of his own within the jurisdiction of Thennur Village Office. Hence, the accused/2nd respondent did not appear before this Court although he had been asked to appear before this Court on 30.11.2016. It is a fact that the accused is more than 82 years old as on today. As per records, he has no properties of his own. Merely because the revision petitioner is bedridden and has no properties of his own, the same itself is not a ground to acquit the accused. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The sentence is modified as follows: The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
