9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC, 1973') has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned Order/Judgment dated 16.08.2022 and the impugned Order on Sentence dated 24.08.2022, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in CT Case No. 4137/2017 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash, in the month of July, 2016, from the respondent No. 2, with whom he had long relationships. The petitioner issued cheque bearing Nos. 682924, 682925 and 682929 of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, all dated 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 had claimed that he had arranged the funds of Rs. 15,00,000/- at an interest of 24% but has failed to disclose the source from where he arranged the loan amount for the petitioner. It is further claimed that the petitioner has already paid the loan amount within three months as promised by him though, no acknowledgement receipt was given by the respondent. He had demanded the cheques issued by him from the respondent No. 2 after he had made the cash payment, but the respondent refused to return them on the ground that they were not available with him. 6. The petitioner has placed reliance on Kumar Export vs. Sharma Carpets, 2009 II AD (S.C) 117, to submit that the petitioner has successf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, it is the respondent No. 2 may be liable for prosecution under Income Tax Act but in view of the categorical admissions of the petitioner of having taken a cash of Rs. 15,00,000/-, he cannot avoid his liability under Section 138 of N.I Act. 11. The petitioner had accordingly been rightly convicted and sentenced the Appeal dismissed by Ld. ASJ vide Order dated 31.05.2024. 12. The petitioner in the present Revision Petition, has not been able to agitate any ground which entitles him to any interference in his conviction and sentence. There is no merit in the present Revision, which is hereby dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of. The Order be sent to the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for execution of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
