Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra, District - Gwalior in SC NIA No.154/2019, whereby petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and has been sentenced to undergo six months R.I. as well as to pay compensation of Rs.12,71,874/- to the respondent with default stipulations. 2.The facts in brief to decide the present revision are that the complaint u/S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the respondent stating therein that the respondent/complainant-UCO Bank, Branch Shuklahari, District Gwalior is a banking institution under the Banking Company Execution and Transfer of Undertaking Act, 1970 whose head office is situated at Bourbon Road Sarani, Calcutta and the branch the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... demanded the loan amount from him. Thereafter, the respondent-bank sent a notice through its advocate on 06.05.2019 by 'Registered AD' which was received by the accused on 17.05.2019 and when the accused did not pay the cheque amount within 15 days, the complaint was filed on 12.06.2019. 4.The learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner which was denied by him. To bring home the charges, prosecution has examined Branch Manager - Indrapuri Goswami. The defense of accused is of false implication and the same defense has been put forth by him. The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and after appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated 28.06.2023 passed in SC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the other hand, counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and argued that the courts below based on evidence adduced by Bank, rightly convicted the petitioner u/S.138 of N.I. Act, 1881. It is further argued that the oral and documentary evidence of Bank remain uncontradicted and petitioner failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove his defense. The respondent - Bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, there is no reason for setting aside the impugned judgments passed by courts below. 7.Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 8.The Respondent-Bank has examined Indrapuri Goswami, Service Branch Manager UCO Bank, Tehsil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ransfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity. (e)as to order of indorsements: -that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear then on. (f)as to stamp: - that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped. (g)that holder is a holder in due course: -that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... documents in respect to transaction between the petitioner/accused and the Bank including the cheque issued by petitioner/accused. 12.Since, nothing contrary is proved, learned courts below have rightly presumed that the cheque Exh. P/10 had been issued for the debt or liability. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that courts below have wrongly held that notice of demand was received by the petitioner/accused based on acknowledgment Exh. P/12, however, the above argument is not acceptable in the light of the fact that the receipt of notice has not been challenged during cross-examination of respondent witness. 13.It is well settled that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, findings of fact recorded by lower court should on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates