TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e name of the Firm, named, Synergy and Solution Incorporation was removed from his office table is not convincing nor the same is supported by any evidence - As pointed by the High Court in the statutory presumption Under Section 139 of N.I. Act, the Appellant-Accused has not satisfactorily rebutted the statutory presumption. The High Court has directed the Appellant to deposit ₹ 5,00,000/- and also costs of ₹ 20,000/- whereas the cheque amount is only ₹ 2,50,000/-. Though Section 138 of the N.I. Act enable the court to impose the higher amount than the cheque amount, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- ordered to be deposited is on the hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances, the Agreement, as agreed by the parties, could not be fructified. The Appellant-Accused had issued a cheque from the account of a firm named Synergy and Solution Incorporation of ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) in order to refund the earnest money to the Respondent-complainant. When the said cheque was presented for clearance by the Respondent-complainant the same was returned with the endorsement Account Closed . After issuing the legal Notice dated 23.08.2013, the Respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the Appellant Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Upon consideration of evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the Appellant-Accused on the ground that the cheque was issued from the account of a fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence on record to show that the said cheque was issued to discharge legally enforceable debt , the High Court has reversed the acquittal of the Appellant-Accused and convicted him Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed fine amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and also imposed costs of ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) on the Appellant. 6. We have heard Mr. G.L. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Accused and Mr. Sudheer Voditel, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-complainant and also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence/materials on record. 7. Admittedly, the parties had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 28.02.2012. It is also an admitted fact that the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
