2017 (8) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to 1 year S.I. and to pay compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the complainant within 3 months i/d 3 months S.I. in C.C.No.8903 of 2004 and 1 year S. I. and to pay compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- to the complainant within 3 months i/d 3 months S.I. in C.C.No.8904 of 2004. 3. Respondent moved prosecution informing that he had supplied finished goods (leather) worth Rs. 9,50,000/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- to petitioner on credit basis and cheques bearing Nos.370983 dated 28.08.2003 for Rs. 8,00,000/-, 373967 dated 25.11.2003 for Rs. 7,00,000/-, 373972 dated 30.11.2003 for Rs. 5,00,000/- and 373973 dated 01.12.2003 for Rs. 4,50,000/- d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials on record. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that cheques and supporting documents related to one case have been marked in the other and vice versa. Towards setting right such error, the case numbers have suitably been altered. This submission is made on visible alterations of case numbers. This Court sees such alterations as nothing more than a mistake and is unable to accept the contention that the same were made post trial. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amit Desai and another v. Shine Enterprises and another [2000 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 82] towards contending that filing of case u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notice dated 04.02.2004, petitioner has caused a reply wherein petitioner has contended that 5500 of sheep nappa skins have been returned to the respondent. She has called for the value thereof to be taken into account and further information on the amount claimed. There has been no rejoinder caused by respondent. Ex.P2 in both cases are Statements of Account marked by respondent. Though invoice numbers have been provided in the Statement of Accounts, the particular invoices had not been marked before the trial Court. It is seen that payment to the tune of Rs. 43,07,000/- is acknowledged but dates of receipt thereof are not informed. The Statements of Account marked as Ex.P2 in both cases can only be seen as self-serving statements. Though ....