TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act'). 2. The petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, constraining him to file the instant revision. 3. It is vehemently argued by Shri Balram Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse inasmuch as they have relied upon the untrustworthy evidence led by the complainant-respondent and, therefore, judgments should be set aside. In addition thereto, he would argue that the cheque was issued by the petitioner under compromise and, therefore, the same cannot be considered to be a new liability so as to furnish a cause of acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shanti Bose and another, AIR 1973 SC 799, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the proceedings or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 13. In State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu, AIR 1979, SC 663, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments including Akalu Aheer vs. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973, SC 2145, held that the power, being discretionary, has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. The Court held that "judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umar vs. Jagannath, AIR 1991, SC 26, Hon'ble Supreme court cautioned the revisional Courts not to lightly exercise the revisional jurisdiction at the behest of a private complainant. 17. In State of Karnataka vs. Appu Balu, AIR 1993, SC 1126 = II (1992) CCR 458 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the revisional powers, it is not permissible for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. 18. In Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 26 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complaint." 19. In Kaptan Singh and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice." 21. In State of A.P. vs. Rajagopala Rao (2000) 10 SCC 338, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment." 6. In order to see whether there is any perversity in the judgments and findings recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t thereafter issued a notice under Section 138 of the Act to the petitioner on 21.06.2012 informing him about dishonour of the cheque and also raising the demand of the cheque amount. The notice was duly served upon the petitioner on 28.06.2012, but he failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period. 8. In order to prove his case, the respondent appeared as CW-1 and in his statement duly supported/corroborated the averments made in the complaint. Even though, the respondent was cross-examined at length, but nothing contrary could be elicited therefrom. He denied that petitioner had paid Rs. 1,35,000/- to him in cash on 09.02.2012 and further denied that three cheques were issued by the petitioner in his favour as security. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shortly after the issuance of the cheques. During the pendency of the said complaint, an endeavour was made to resolve the dispute and differences between the parties and thereafter an agreement was entered by and between the parties in terms whereof, it was agreed that if a cheque of Rs. 5,02,050/- is issued, then the complaint petition would be withdrawn. Consequently, one of the Directors issued a cheque for the said sum on 29.07.2000 which on presentation was returned on 29.01.2001 with the remark "insufficient fund". 11. It was in this background that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the second cheque that was issued by one of the Directors for the purpose of arriving at a settlement was not issued in discharge of the debt or li....