2020 (1) TMI 1471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner and the Respondent will be referred to as Accused and Complainant, respectively. 3. The facts of the case gleaned from the evidence on record show that the Accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,12,560 on 13.11.2006 as hand loan from the Complainant and had issued a Cheque (Ex.P1), dated 14.12.2006 for the said sum; the Complainant presented the Cheque (Ex.P1) on 24.2.2007 and it was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient" on 26.2.2007 vide Bank's Return Memo (Ex.P3); therefore, the Complainant issued a Statutory Demand Notice (Ex.P4), dated 1.3.2007, which was received by the Accused vide Postal Acknowledgement Card (Ex.P6), dated 1.3.2007; the Accused neither replied to the Statutory Demand Notice (Ex.P4) n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the rival submissions, it may be necessary to state here that while exercising Revisional jurisdiction in a case involving concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below, the High Court cannot act as a Second Appellate Court [See State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others, 2004 (7) SCC 659]. Very recently, in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, 2019 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 164 (SC): 2019 (4) SCC 197, the Supreme Court has held as under: "17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, 2008 (14) SCC 457, it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction, in the absence ....