2017 (12) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reby the judgement dated 02.01.2015 and order on sentence dated 17.01.2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld.   2. Factual matrix emerging from the record is that, a complaint was lodged by one Amit Kumar alleging therein that the petitioner who being in close family relations with him, requested for a personal loan for a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs in the first week of October 2011. Considering the urgent need of the petitioner, the complainant is stated to have given a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the petitioner vide Cheque bearing No.038785, dated 12.01.2011, issued from the account of one Raj Kalan/a relative of the complainant and the same was encashed by the petitioner from the account of one Inder Singh. The complainant further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in case of failure in paying the said amount, to further suffer SI for three months vide judgment dated 02.01.2015 and order on sentence dated 17.01.2015. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment on conviction and order of sentence of the Trial Court vide Crl.Appeal No.12/2016 before the Special Judge, (PC Act) CBI-03, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. The Appellate Court vide order dated 27.05.2016 affirmed the judgment and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present Revision Petition. 5. Mr. Jatin Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgement of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is bad in law and is based on conjectures and surmis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner and the complainant were well acquainted with each other as both the parties have deposed similarly to this effect. The complainant/Amit Kumar categorically deposed before the Trial Court as under:- "My wife and daughter of accused was working together at same place....... It is also correct that Seema was regularly visits at my house. It is correct that my wife was also regularly visited Seema's house and sometime, I picked my wife from the house Seema " The petitioner/Bhoop Singh did not dispute the said fact during his cross-examination. Further in his statement under section 31....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that "My account has been dead since the very beginning". Despite having said so, the petitioner has not tendered any reasonable explanation as to why he had kept the blank signed cheques at his house when his account was already closed. Hence the plea raised by the petitioner does not inspire confidence.   10. The petitioner has further contended that the legal demand notice/Ex CW-1/C was never received by him. As per records, the legal demand notice/Ex CW-1/C was duly sent through registered post and AD Card/Ex CW-1/E was duly received by Deepti/daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner has also not disputed the address mentioned on Ex CW-1/E and the same address also appears on the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. Therefor....