9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No.1 - Haryana Financial Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') advanced some credit to M/s Anmol Agro India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners were Directors of the said firm. The firm, through petitioner - Sanjiv Kumar, issued two account payee post dated cheques bearing Nos.641549 and 641550 dated 25.12.1997 and 15.01.1998 in the sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- each, drawn on State Bank of India, Kaithal, in favour of complainant - Corporation, qua payment of amount due towards the petitioners. However, on presentation of cheques before Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kaithal, the same were dishonoured vide memo dated 16.01.1998. Legal notice dated 19.01.1998 was served upon the petitioners but they failed to indemnify the complainant. Consequently, complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentenced were challenged in appeal before the Sessions Court which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 14.09.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the courts below have grossly erred in reading the facts and law. The courts below have overlooked the material evidence on record to the effect that Rs. 10 lac had been deposited by the petitioners after dishonour of the cheque and all assets of the petitioners were sold by the respondent - Corporation in realization of gross amount of Rs. 80.10 lac. Learned counsel further contended that it was the duty of complainant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also their execution. Once the signature on the cheques and also the execution of the cheque are admitted, there is a statutory presumption that the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt and the said presumption is a rebutted presumption. The petitioner has not rebutted the statutory presumption. Both the courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The judgments of the courts below are concurrent since the issuance of the cheques and also the signature found in the cheques are admitted and also the statutory presumption has not been rebutted by the petitioner. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not to sit in the armchair of the judgments of the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this Court is of the considered view that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed, a person by virtue of the office which he holds, could sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In view of the above discussion, the judgments recorded by the courts below are well reasoned. On reading of the entire material placed before this Court, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgments of both the courts below while appreciating evidence. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leniency qua sentence in as much as only petitioner No.1 is alive whereas petitioner No.2 - Kewal Krishan and performa respondent No.2 - N.M. Chandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
