TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, the notice has been sent within the statutory period as has come out in the evidence of PW-1. Even though the alleged legal notice dated 09-09-2010 sent on behalf of the complainant to the accused is not marked as an exhibit, but the reply to the said notice which is at Ex. P-11 acknowledges the receipt of the said notice dated 09-09-2010 sent on behalf of the complainant by the accused. It is only after acknowledging the receipt of the said notice, the accused has proceeded to give his reply through Ex. P-11. Therefore, in the light of the un-denied and undisputed evidence of PW-1, which is further corroborated by the evidence of postal receipt and acknowledgement at Exs. P-7 to P-10, and more particularly, in the light of the acknow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. - Criminal Revision Petition No. 1168 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2021 - Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. For the Appellant : N. Suresha, Advocate For the Respondents : R.B. Sadasivappa, Advocate ORDER Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. 1. The present petitioner as the accused was tried by the Court of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Trial Court ), in C.C. No. 15991/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the N.I. Act ) and was convi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant for its realisation, the same came to be returned dishonoured with the banker's endorsement funds insufficient and exceeds arrangement vide endorsement dated 22-07-2010. However, at the specific request of the accused, the complainant re-presented the said cheque in the last week of August 2010, which also found the same result of dishonour from the bank with the reason of 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 09-09-2010 through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) as well Under Certificate of Posting (UCP), demanding the payment of the cheque amount. However, the accused instead of paying the cheque amount, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein is being represented by his counsel. 6. The Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court's records. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 9. The only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is: Whether the judgments under revision are perverse, illegal and erroneous warranting interference at the hands of this Court? 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused in his arguments canvassed only two po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be noticed that in spite of granting sufficient opportunity, PW-1 was not cross-examined from the accused's side, as such, the entire evidence of PW-1 has remained un-denied from the accused's side. 12. The un-denied evidence of PW-1 - Sri. Channappa would go to show that, the complainant concern is a proprietorship concern and he is the proprietor of the said concern and doing Money Lending business, being a licenced money lender and had lent a sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- at the first instance and another sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- at the second instance, in total, a sum of ₹ 11,00,000/- to the accused as evidenced in the deposit of the title deeds document, which is at Ex. P-12. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner/a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egal notice dated 09-09-2010 sent on behalf of the complainant to the accused is not marked as an exhibit, but the reply to the said notice which is at Ex. P-11 acknowledges the receipt of the said notice dated 09-09-2010 sent on behalf of the complainant by the accused. It is only after acknowledging the receipt of the said notice, the accused has proceeded to give his reply through Ex. P-11. Therefore, in the light of the un-denied and undisputed evidence of PW-1, which is further corroborated by the evidence of postal receipt and acknowledgement at Exs. P-7 to P-10, and more particularly, in the light of the acknowledgment of receipt of the notice by the accused through his reply at Ex. P-11, the mere non-marking of a copy of the legal n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
