TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to pay a fine of Rs. 1,40,000/- jointly and severally, in default to issue distress warrant upon M/s. Chakraborty Consultancy Services and directing the petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. In addition, the petitioners were directed to suffer imprisonment for three months respectively. 75% of the fine amount, if deposited, is to be handed over to the opposite party no.2 as compensation. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the petitioners is to the effect that one Shrivardhan Kalyani filed a petition of complaint through his authorized attorney, Md. Turban Ansari against M/s. Chakraborty Consultancy Services, a partnership firm and its partners, that is the petitioners herein, alleging that the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2008 convicted and sentenced the petitioners' firm and the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,40,000/- jointly and severally, in default to issue distress warrant upon the petitioners' firm and directed the petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. In addition, the petitioners were directed to suffer imprisonment for three months respectively. 75% of the fine amount, if deposited, is to be handed over to the opposite party no.2 as compensation. In appeal, the said judgment and order was affirmed. Hence, the present petition is filed before this court. It is pleaded in the petition that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.2. Certified copy of the sale deed had been exhibited as Exhibit A. There is nothing in the recitals of the sale deed that the transfer of such property was in discharge of the liability of the petitioners' firm towards the opposite party no.2. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the aforesaid transfer was in discharge of the liabilities of the petitioners' firm towards the opposite party no. 2 - complainant and, therefore, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability against which the dishonoured cheque had been issued. Evidence had also been led to show that the cheque on presentation was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and in spite of receipt of notice of dishonour no payments were made. ....