In the light of such pro settlement stand on behalf of the appellant, an order to that effect was passed on 24th February, 2016.
After adjusting Rs.20,00,000/ paid by the appellant in 2003 by way of part settlement, the balance amount with same rate of interest till 29th February, 2016 has resulted into an amount of Rs.2,86,17,424 payable by the appellant to the Bank as on 29th February, 2016.
1 of 2002.
As per the original chart Rs.58,10,000/ is the principal amount decreed against the appellant vide order dated 3.5.2007 passed by the Special Court, Mumbai in Civil Suit No.
Accordingly, the cheque came to be presented on 29.6.1992.
6 of 2002.
Then he happened to promise to issue Pay order, which he never issued.
50,00,000/ and another for Rs.33,00,000/ , both were dishonoured, number once but twice.
It was also made clear that a reasonable rate of interest as may be determined by this Court will be acceptable to the respondent Bank.
On the next and final date of hearing a chart showing the amount payable by the appellant to the bank was produced by Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned companynsel for the respondent bank.
Since we were inclined to agree with the aforesaid view of the learned Special Court on the basis whereof the appellant has been companyvicted for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ only and in default to suffer RI for further three months, a suggestion was made by Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior advocate for the appellant, on the basis of instructions received, that respondent bank should file a chart showing the amount payable by the appellant after deducting the amount that has already been paid and or after taking into companysideration the adjustment of shares already made.
While rejecting the defence of the accused that there was numbercriminal intention on his part in number paying the amount of Rs.83,00,000/ , the learned Judge, Special Court in paragraph 23 of the judgment under appeal has given lucid account of relevant facts for reaching at such companyclusion.
He then delivered two cheques, one for Rs.
Again, the accused requested to present the cheque subsequently and on such subsequent presentation also the cheque was dishonoured.
It was dishonoured.
This companyduct of the accused shows a clear dishonest intention of misappropriation of the shares or its sell companysideration.
It further transpires that interest has also been allowed at the rate of 18 per annum from 20th June, 1992.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. This is an appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992, directed against the final judgment and order dated 17.10.2005 of the Special Judge in Special Case No.
