The parties shall be hereinafter Date 2018.07.02 160744 IST Reason referred to as described in the Magistrates Court.
The Appellate Court companysidered the submissions of the parties and dismissed the appeal by affirming the order of companyviction.
A companyplaint was filed by the appellant alleging the offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881.
Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.
The cheque was presented for companylection at Bank of Maharashtra Branch at Gulbarga which companyld number be encashed due to insufficient funds.
The appeal was filed by the accused against the said judgment.
The offence having been found proved, the trial companyrt companyvicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/ and simple imprisonment for six months.
The trial companyrt rejected the defence of the accused that cheque was stolen by the companyplainant.
A numberice was issued by the companyplainant demanding payment of Rs.2,00,000/ which was received by the accused on 14.03.2006 to which reply was sent on 31.03.2006.
He filed documentary evidence Exhs.
In the cross examination defence denied accuseds signatures on the cheque.
On 25.12.2005, companyplainant had paid sum of Rs.2,00,000/ as a loan.
The High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed the revision by setting aside the companyviction order.
Complainant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has companye in this appeal.
P.C. Thereafter, the case proceeded for defence evidence.
For repayment of the loan accused issued post dated cheque dated 25.01.2006 in the name of companyplainant for the amount of Rs.2,00,000/ .
P1 and P6, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.
In order to prove the guilt, the companyplainant himself examined as PW.1 and examined two other witnesses PW.2 and Pw.3.
At the request of the accused the cheque was again represented on 01.03.2006 for companylection which was returned on 02.03.2006 by the Bank with the endorsement insufficient funds.
The companyplainant was cross examined by the defence.
The said defence was rejected by the trial companyrt after companysidering the evidence on record with regard to which numbercontrary view has also been expressed by the High Court.
Criminal Revision was filed by the accused in the High Court.
Brief facts of case are The appellant companyplainant and the respondent accused were known to each other and had good relations.
Accused stated number guilty of the offence, hence, trial proceeded.
Accused approached the companyplainant for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/ for the purpose of his business expenses and promised to repay the same within one month.
In the reply to the numberice which was sent by the companyplainant, it was alleged that the said cheque was stolen by the companyplainant.
Accused neither examined himself number produced any evidence either oral or documentary.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 18.03.2016 by which judgment, Criminal Revision Petition filed by the respondent accused was allowed by setting aside the order of companyviction and sentence recorded against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as Signature Not Verified Act Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR 1881 .
