TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aside the judgment dated 8.5.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer (for short 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.16/2011. The trial court vide judgment dated 8.5.2013 has convicted the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him for one year's simple imprisonment and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- to the appellant. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed a complaint against the respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the trial court on 1.9.2010 while alleging that he has advanced a loan of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent No.2 for his personal needs and the respondent No.2 has given him a cheque No.0201822 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chagan Lal (DW-2) have been examined in defence. Two documents were produced by the respondent No.2 in defence. The trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the evidence available on record has held that the respondent No.2 borrowed amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the appellant and has given him a cheque for repayment of the said loan, however, the said cheque was not realized when presented in the bank and despite receipt of notice the amount has not been paid by the respondent No.2. The trial court has held that the appellant has sufficiently proved that the cheque in question was given to him by the respondent No.2 in lieu of legally enforceable debt and the respondent No.2 has failed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same was returned by the bank with a remark 'insufficient fund', then, the appellant has informed the respondent No.2 about the same and on asking has again presented the cheque in the concerned bank on 23.7.2010, but again the same was dishonoured. The appellant has thereafter sent a registered notice to the respondent No.2 and asked him to pay the loan amount within a period of 15 days, but, despite service of the said registered notice, the respondent No.2 has failed to repay the loan. It is contended that the trial court after taking into consideration the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence has rightly convicted the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and has rightly directed hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant has disclosed the date, on which, he has advanced amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent No.2. Though, he has produced some documents, diary etc. to prove that he has advanced loan of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent No.2, but in that diary, there is no mention of amount of Rs. 40,000/- and the date on which any loan was given by him to the respondent. The appellant in his cross examination has admitted that the entry regarding the advancement of loan of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent No.2 is not figuring in the said diary. He has also admitted that except the said documentary evidence, there is no other account, in which, the entry regarding the advancement of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent No.2 is figured. This Court has notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t No.2 has paid the due amount to the appellant in cash, however, on his demand, the blank cheque was not returned to him by the appellant. Mohan Singh (DW-1) and Chagan Lal (DW-2) in their court statements have also stated that the respondent No.2 has paid the due amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the appellant in two installments of Rs. 20,000/- each in their presence. The appellant (PW-1) in his cross examination has admitted about the transaction of purchase of indica car by the respondent No.2 from him and he has also admitted that the respondent No.2 has paid some rupees in advance. The trial court has disbelieved the defence of the respondent No.2 but the appellate court has accepted the same and has held that in view of the clear admissi....