TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubt in the mind of Court, that amount as referred was paid by complainant to accused and he in discharge of his liability issued cheques, which were ultimately dishonoured. This Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of argument having been advanced by learned counsel for the accused/petitioner that there was no lawful consideration, carefully examined the entire evidence, which clearly suggests that there is no merit in aforesaid argument of learned counsel representing the petitioner - Bare perusal of Ext.D1, which was tendered in evidence by petitioner himself, proves on record that he had taken amount from the complainant and had issued two cheques for discharging his liability. There are no illegality and infirmity in judgments of conviction recorded by learned Courts below, which are certainly based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced by parties and as such, present petition is dismissed - petition dismissed. - Cr. Revision No. 394 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2017 - Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, J. For the Petitioner : Shri Vikas Chandel, Vice Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri Hamender Chandel, Advocate. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onviction recorded by learned Court below, preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal No. 1-S/10 of 2015. Learned Sessions Judge, Solan vide judgment dated 7.9.2015 dismissed the appeal, as a result of which conviction recorded by learned Court below came to be upheld. 5. In the aforesaid background, accused/petitioner approached this Court in instant proceedings seeking his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Courts below. 6. This Court vide order dated 4.11.2015 suspended the substantive sentence subject to the petitioner s furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Vide aforesaid order, accused/petitioner was also directed to deposit fine amount to the tune of Rs.5 lacs but same was not deposited by accused/petitioner with learned trial Court. However, the fact remains that despite order having been passed qua suspension of sentence, accused/petitioner neither furnished bail bonds nor deposited the amount of fine. Subsequently, on 18.10.2016 le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pe of interference in the aforesaid judgments, especially in view of the concurrent findings of facts as well as law given by both Courts below. To refute the arguments addressed by learned counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. Hamender Chandel, learned counsel, invited the attention of this Court to Ext.D1 i.e. agreement to sell, allegedly executed between the parties, to demonstrate that steps, if any, for execution of sale deed, were to be taken by accused/petitioner not by complainant, who admittedly advanced Rs. four lacs to accused/petitioner after obtaining the loan from the Bank. Mr. Hamender Chandel, learned counsel, also invited the attention of this Court to statement having been made by accused, wherein he has stated that he had issued two cheques worth Rs. two lacs each. Mr. Chandel further stated that petitioner/accused has admitted that he had accepted the amount as per Ext.D1. While concluding his argument, Mr. Hamender Chandel, learned counsel, forcefully contended that all the material points have been dealt with meticulously by learned Courts below and as such, present proceedings be dismissed and quashed. He also placed reliance on State of Kerala Vs. Puttum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... npaid for want of sufficient funds in the account of accused. Record suggests that there is no cross examination of this witness by accused/petitioner and as such his statement remained unrebutted. Conjoint reading of statements of aforesaid witnesses clearly proves on record that complainant successfully proved all the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act. 11. Accused/petitioner while making statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted the issuance of cheques but stated that these were issued as a security for performance of agreement Ext.D1. This Court carefully perused Ext.D1. Perusal whereof corroborates the version putforth by complainant that he had advanced an amount of Rs. four lacs to accused/petitioner on his asking. It would be profitable to reproduce following paras of agreement Ext.D1:- 2. That the first party is in dire of money due to her family circumstances and she contacted second party to obtain loan from any nationalized bank/any financial institution amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lacs only) for a period of 3(three) months from the date of this agreement. 3. That the second party is ready and willing with the first party and he w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y him. His statement may not be relevant in view of admission of both the parties regarding execution of this agreement Ext.D1. Conjoint reading of evidence and documents placed on record clearly establish on record that complainant had advanced an amount of Rs. four lacs to accused on understanding that he would return the same within stipulated period. Similarly this Court after carefully examining the cheques Ext.CW2/A and Ext.CW2/B is convinced that these were issued by accused/petitioner towards his liability to repay the amount. Careful perusal of Ext.D1, leaves no doubt in the mind of Court, that amount as referred above was paid by complainant to accused and he in discharge of his liability issued cheques, which were ultimately dishonoured. This Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of argument having been advanced by learned counsel for the accused/petitioner that there was no lawful consideration, carefully examined the entire evidence, which clearly suggests that there is no merit in aforesaid argument of learned counsel representing the petitioner. Bare perusal of Ext.D1, which was tendered in evidence by petitioner himself, proves on record tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
