9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) under which the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Simple Imprisonment for 06 months and compensation of Rs.1,46,287/-, in default of payment of compensation, additional S.I. for 01 month. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent (complainant) filed a complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, on the ground that on 13.12.2007, the accused/applicant purchased some articles worth Rs.1,46,287/- from the shop of Complainant/Respondent herein and promised to make payment within 15 days. In order to make payment, the Accused/Applicant issued a cheque of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal and against the law, therefore, the same is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court below have not properly appreciated the facts and evidences available on record while passing the impugned judgments. Both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence of witnesses in true perspective. The Complainant has failed to establish that the cheque was issued for discharge of lawful debt. The complaint has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gn on cheque, it will be useful in future. The said cheque was blank having signature but date was not mentioned in it. She has further stated that when the accused/applicant signed the cheque (Ex.P/3), it was blank. The accused/applicant is suffering from mental disease. From the evidence of aforesaid witness, it is evident that the accused/applicant has not denied his signature on cheque (Ex.P/3). 9. In order to determine the question whether offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is made out against the applicant, it will be necessary to examine the scope and ambit of presumptions to be raised as envisaged by the provision of Section 139 of the Act, which read as under:- 139. Presumption in favour of holder. - It shall be pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the cheques were issued, or after the presentation to its banker, or when the same were dishonoured, or after the legal notices were served informing the appellant that both the cheques on being presented to its banker were returned with a note that it could not be honoured because of "insufficient funds". 21. That apart, when the complainant exhibited all these documents in support of his complaints and recorded the statement of three witnesses in support thereof, the appellant has recorded her statement under Section 313 of the Code, but failed to record evidence to disprove or rebut the presumption in support of her defence available under Section 139 of the Act. The statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
