Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (4) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orrectness of judgments dated 30.10.2017 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in CA Nos.92/17 and 93/2017 respectively whereby findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in CC Nos.22287/16 and 22185/16 regarding conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld. 2. Revision petition 842/2017 has been filed by the petitioner-M/S R.K. Industries through its proprietor Rajesh Chaudhary to impugn the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 30.10.2017 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in CA No. 96/2017 endorsing the findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No.22229/16 regarding conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.   3. The revision petitions are contested by the respondent. 4. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sh Chaudhary in the examination admitted that certain amount was due from him and his wife. He volunteered to add that approximately one or two lacs were due towards him. Apparently, the petitioners had business dealings with the respondent and pursuant to that the cheques in question were issued by him. 8. It has come on record that the respondent was in possession of relevant documents and had offered to produce them if so required. The petitioners did not insist for production of those documents. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the petitioners for not insisting for the production of those documents. Moreover, the petitioners themselves did not produce any document, whatsoever, to show as to how and in what manner the cheques ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f different dates and on presentation they were dishonoured. It has further come on record that petitioner's wife in similar circumstances, was also convicted under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. However, on her making payment of the compensation amount, the said matter was settled/compounded and she was acquitted of the charges. 14. In all the cases of different valuation of cheques, the substantive sentence for six months each has been awarded by the trial court. Again, the default sentence for the compensation amount which varies from Rs. 60,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- is simple imprisonment for six months each. This approach of the trial court to award default sentence without considering the compensation/cheque amount can....