TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance with the settled legal position. There are no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below with regard to the conviction and sentence. No interference is warranted in this regard. There is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. The criminal revision case is dismissed. - Crl. R. C. No. 624 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2022 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY FOR THE PETITIONER : M V SUBBA REDDY FOR THE RESPONDENT : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TG JUDGMENT This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 22.03.2019 passed in Crl.A. No. 312 of 2016, wherein the learned II-Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2011 for purchase of batteries mentioned and accordingly, the complainant supplied the batteries to Leighton Welspun Contractors Pvt., Ltd., the client of the accused. The complainant raised a tax invoice for Rs. 1,10,41,947/- for the value of the batteries supplied. The total value of supply made by the complainant company is for Rs. 1,18,56,030/-. After receiving the batteries, the accused company paid technical consultation fee on installation of batteries. 4. It is further stated in the complaint that the amount covered by the above two invoices have to be paid within 45 days from the date of invoice. After expiry of 45 days period, the representative of the complainant company requested the accused to pay the sum of Rs. 1,18,56,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant and Exs. P-1 to P-22 were marked, besides Exs. X-1 to X-4. D.Ws. 1 2 were examined on behalf of the accused and Exs. D-1 D-2 were marked, besides Exs. X-1 to X-4. 7. The trial Court, after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, convicted and sentenced A-2 and A-3, representing the A-1 company, him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,55,02,000/- jointly and in default to undergo suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The trial court further ordered the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 1,55,02,000/- (cheque amount of Rs. 1,18,56,030/- plus interest @ 9% per annum) to the complainant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Sections 118 and 139 of the Act and held the complainant positively proved that Ex. P-2 cheque is supported by legally enforceable liability that is worth batteries supplied to A-1 company and that Ex. P-2 supported by consideration is in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to rebut the said presumptions. The second respondent has placed cogent and convincing evidence before the trial court that the accused issued cheque and when presented it was unpaid for the reason 'insufficient funds' on 24.12.2012 and thereupon the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex. P-4 dated 17.01.2013 calling upon A-1 to A-4 to pay the cheque amount within 15 days. The notice was served on A-1 company, whereas the notice sent to A-2 to A-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
