TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....condoned. CRL.REV.P. 811/2015 & Crl.M.(Bail) 8349/2015 (for grant of bail during pendency of the petition) 1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 09.12.2015, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner, impugning order on conviction dated 06.06.2013 and order on sentence dated 25.06.2013, has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the complainant. 3. Subject complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 contending that he was a dealer in general items inter alia computers, spare parts, mechanical spare parts, handicrafts, home furnishing, etc. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 had been purchasing goods from the complainant on credit basis and a current account was being maintained in the regular course of business. It is alleged that the complainant supplied good to the respondent No.2 against two bills totalling to Rs. 8,80,500/-. Petitioner is the son of the respondent No.2. It is alleged that in discharge of liability of respondent No.2 to the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner in both the cases, however, in the case which was filed only against the petitioner, the Appellate Court accepted the contentions of the petitioner and found that petitioner had been able to rebut the statutory presumption and respondent No.1 had failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, petitioner was acquitted by the Appellate Court. In a leave to appeal to High Court against order of acquittal, filed by respondent No.1, impugning the order of the Appellate Court. 10. The High Court accepted the findings returned by the Appellate Court and reaffirmed that the petitioner had been able to rebut the statutory presumption and the respondent No.1 had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the judgment of the High Court in the other case was passed on 04.02.2015 in Crl.L.P.52/2015, said judgment was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Court in this case. He submits that since the leave petition, referred to above, was dismissed without notice to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the judgment and the respondent No.1 concealed the same from the Appellate Court ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is concerned that is also upheld as I do not find any reason to differ with the same. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. Copy of order along with trial court record be sent back. Criminal appeal file be consigned to Record Room." 13. Clearly, the Appellate Court in the impugned order has proceeded on the statutory presumption and returned a finding on the ground that the cheque is admitted to have been signed by the petitioner. The Appellate Court has held that in case there was a dispute between the parties, the petitioner should have issued instructions to the Bank to stop payment or demanded back his cheque, which was not done in the present case. The Appellate Court has primarily gone on the finding that as the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and bears the signatures of the petitioner and further the statement of account maintained by the respondent No.1 showed an outstanding amount equivalent to the cheque amount, the respondent No.1 had been able to establish his case. 14. It is noticed from the impugned order that the attention of the Court was not drawn to the judgment passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner in the other case wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused firm was opened at the instance of the complainant and it has been admitted by the complainant in his cross examination, that he used to have watch over the dealings of accused no.1, the document pertaining to salary certificate of the accused is also on the record, therefore, it cannot be negated that a sham firm was created in the name of the accused by the complainant just to inflate the prices of the goods imported by him from abroad. I fail to appreciate the reasoning of the ld. MM, as in the judgment dated 10.05.2013, these facts were not considered. The ld. MM should have considered these facts in the judgment dated 10.05.2013 and not in the order on sentence dated 15.05.2013. I am of the view that Id. MM has not given any reason why she disbelieved the version of DW-1. The ld. MM should have appreciated the documents and evidence of the accused and then came to the conclusion. The conclusion reached by the ld. MM is against the documents and evidence available on the record. The Ld. MM has admitted all the contentions of M/s. Taurian Overseas in her order on sentence. I am of the view that ld. MM should have dealt all these contentions in the judgment dated 10.05.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case has categorically returned a finding that the petitioner has been able to raise a serious doubt about the claim of the respondent No.1 and establish that no amount was due from the petitioner on account of supply of any equipment. The Court was of the view that the petitioner had been able to establish instances where products imported by the respondent No.1 in the name of the firm M/s. Soni Impex and Ors. (firm of respondent No. 1/complainant) were shown as sold to Ms. Taurian Overseas (firm of petitioner), from Taurian Overseas to M/s. Xeon Infotech (firm of respondent No. 2-father of petitioner) and from M/s. Xeon Infotech to Graffitti Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (ultimate buyer) and the entire payment received in respect of such sale was routed back firstly into the account of M/s. Xeon Infotech then to Ms. Taurian Overseas and then to Soni Impex. 22. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the other proceedings on the same evidence and material has held that the defence of the petitioner that he was an employee of the respondent No.1 receiving salary in the form of salary and commission was also established. The Court has returned a finding that all these facts clearly established....