9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs as compensation to the respondent, within one month from the date of the Order i.e. 25.07.2024. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent/complainant booked a Holiday Tour package for Australia for two persons, which was scheduled for departure on 12.03.2014 at the cost of Rs. 1,20,000/- per person, i.e., for a total sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-. According to the complainant the sum of Rs. 1,36,340/- was paid in cash while the balance amount had been paid by cheque and thereby the complete amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was paid by the complainant to the Revisionists for the tour. 3. However, subsequently, the tour package was not arranged but the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was retained by the Revisionists. Consequently, the complainant sought refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- and eventually the Revisionist Bhavna Chopra issued a cheque No. 474613 for Rs. 2,40,000/- dated 13.03.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch, New Delhi. 4. However, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint on 13.03.2014 under Section 138 N.I. Act by alleging that the cheque on presentation was dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insuffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pensation to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo SI for a period of fifteen days. 11. An Appeal was preferred before the learned ASJ, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.04.2024 upholding the conviction, though the sentence was modified to the extent that the appellant Bhavna Chopra and Amit Chopra were directed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the respondent as compensation within one month from the date of Order failing which they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Revision has been filed on the grounds that the impugned conviction and sentence is bad in law and facts and is liable to be set aside. The complainant alleged to have paid a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/-, but it is a concocted story as there is no reason why only a certain amount would be given by cheque, while the balance amount in cash as has been asserted by the complainant. It is claimed that the complainant's assertions were neither supported by any document, Agreement, letter nor any email communication. Even the date on which this alleged Agreement was entered int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 17. It is further argued that Legal Notice dated 01.07.2014 was never served upon the Revisionist as is evident from the admissions of the respondent in the cross-examination wherein he has stated that he had not sent any written intimation about the dishonour of the cheque which was otherwise conveyed to the accused persons. Admittedly, no written intimation in regard to dishonour of the cheques had been sent to the Revisionist and the service of Legal Notice has been manipulated by the complainant. 18. It is further submitted that the Revisionist Amit Chopra is unwell and is having a 70% heart issue and had not signed the cheque in question. There is no evidence whatsoever, to connect the Revisionist with the commission of offence. The impugned conviction and the sentence is, therefore, liable to be set aside. In addition, the Revisionist is entitled to compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for having been made to suffer mental anxiety, stress and trauma. 19. The respondent had put in appearance through the counsel today on advance Notice. 20. Submissions heard and record perused. 21. The complainant had filed the Complaint against the revisionist under S.138 NI Act in regard to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were not determined. The complainant and his brother-in-law started abusing Bhavna Chopra and during this altercation, the brother-in- law of the complainant took away the cheque in question from the table of Bhavna Chopra. Pertinently, the Revisionist had failed to explain as to why the amount of Rs. 73,660/- had been returned to the mother of the complainant and if so was the defence, how and the manner in which the money was handed over to the mother. Aside from bald assertions, no cogent evidence has been led. The easiest way was to produce the account statement to show the debit in the name of the mother but no evidence what soever has been produced by the Revisionist. 27. The Revisionist has further contended that the from the bare perusal of the Cheque, it is apparent that there were different pens used for the signatures and the other details filled in the cheque, which created serious doubt about the cheque being genuinely given by the Revisionist. 28. No complaint in regard to the cheques having been taken by the Revisionist was made to any Authority. Moreover, the payment against this cheque was stopped by the Revisionists, which any prudent person would do in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emo has been produced by the complainant. The perusal of the record shows that the cheque in question Ex.CW1/A dated 13.03.2014 got deposited in ICICI Bank by pay-in slip dated 11.06.2014 Ex.CW1/B. The cheque got rejected vide Rejection Memo Ex.CW1/C. It is correct that the said Rejection Memo neither mentions the cheque number nor the date, but it bears the stamp of the ICICI Bank. It is but natural that if the cheque got deposited on 11.06.2014, the dishonour had to be subsequent to it. 34. The date of dishonour has been stated by the complainant in his testimony as 12.06.2014. This also finds corroboration from the Legal Notice dated 01.07.2014 Ex.CW1/D sent by the complainant wherein it had been explained that the cheque had been presented twice i.e. on 13.03.2014 and again on 11.06.2014 on the request of the Revisionist, but on both occasions it got dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. 35. The Legal Notice got duly served on 09.07.2014. It has been explained in the complaint that the Legal Notice Ex.CW1/D had been sent through registered post, the original receipt of which is dated 09.07.2014, but the registered cover was returned back with the remarks "left without addre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
