TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fered his son to participate in a new business and after being convinced, the Complainant spent a huge amount in the business of the petitioner by his selling trucks, but on asking to repay the benefits of the share, the petitioner issued a post dated cheque bearing no. 831577 dated 15.08.2006 for a sum of ₹ 24,344/- in favour of the Complainant. On presentation of the cheque on 7.09.2006, 19.09.2006 and also on 18.10.2006 with the consent of the petitioner, the same was dishonoured due to being not arranged for. The further case of the Complainant was that the petitioner was informed in respect of the payment of the bounced cheque amount, but he did not pay the same. The Complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 31.10.2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while upholding conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court also finds that all the basic ingredients for filing the Complaint case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were duly satisfied. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioner. Petition dismissed. - Cr. Rev. No. 1013 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2021 - HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Sanja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case is that the cheque itself was not issued in discharge of any liability and accordingly, one of the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not at all satisfied. Learned counsel further submitted that the cheque was issued merely as a guarantee and not in discharge of any debt. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer, submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had issued the cheque and the other requirements for filing of the Complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were duly satisfied. He further submitted that so far as the issuance of the cheque against the legally p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 dated 15.08.2006 for a sum of ₹ 24,344/- in favour of the Complainant. On presentation of the cheque on 7.09.2006, 19.09.2006 and also on 18.10.2006 with the consent of the petitioner, the same was dishonoured due to being not arranged for. The further case of the Complainant was that the petitioner was informed in respect of the payment of the bounced cheque amount, but he did not pay the same. The Complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 31.10.2006 by registered post and also by courier service, but the petitioner did not pay the said amount and ultimately, the Complaint case was filed. 10. After enquiry, vide order dated 19.01.2007, a prima facie case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was found ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1577 dated 15.08.2006 for a sum of ₹ 24,344/- in his favour and he identified the writing and signature of the petitioner which was marked as Exhibit-1. On presentation, the cheque was not encashed and it was dishonoured. He identified the bank return memos which were marked as Exhibits- 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively. He also identified the deposit slips of bank which were marked as Exhibits- 3, 3/1 and 3/2 respectively. The legal notice was sent as per his direction which was prepared by the counsel which was marked as Exhibit-4. He also identified the signature of the petitioner on the acknowledgment as Exhibit-5, postal receipt as Exhibit-6 and the receipt of courier service as Exhibit-7. This Court finds that C.W.-2 has fully suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bank unpaid because of insufficient fund which falls under the purview of the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court finds that the learned appellate court also recorded that all the basic ingredients for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were satisfied and accordingly conviction of the petitioner was upheld. 15. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have appreciated the evidences on record and have rightly considered the provision under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while upholding conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court also finds that all the basic ingredients for filing the Complaint case for offence under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
