TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This petition has been filed for setting aside the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2011 passed in Complaint No. 1610 of 2008 corresponding to TR No. 580/2011 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The petitioner also prays for setting-aside of the judgement passed in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2011 dated 28.04.2012 by learned Sessions Judge -III at Hazaribag whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to affirm the judgement passed by learned trial court. Arguments of the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....never issued in discharge of a debt or liability or any legally enforceable dues. The learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant has taken a plea that a friendly loan was given to the petitioner, but the petitioner had adduced evidence to show that the complainant was a petty contractor under the petitioner. Arguments on behalf of the opposite party 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the learned trial court has appreciated the Exhibit-A and recorded its independent finding on the said document and the plea of the petitioner was rejected by the learned court below by a well-reasoned judgement. He also submits that there is no scope for reappreciation of evidence in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. In support of the prosecution case, two witnesses were examined. The complainant was examined as P.W. 1 and another witness namely Surendra Gupta was examined as P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has supported the prosecution case and deposed that the complainant had given friendly loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner had issued post-dated cheque bearing the date as 10.04.2008. He has also stated that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- for payment of labours with regard to the work done by the petitioner in G.T. Road and promised to repay the same when his bill is cleared. 11. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He admitted the issuance of cheque, but stated that he did not issue the che....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hibit-A and found that the same did not contain the signature of the petitioner so as to prove that there was any agreement between the parties in connection with presenting the cheque. The learned trial court also found that nothing was mentioned in Exhibit-A as to whether the payment was to be made to the complainant or no further payment was to be made. The said plea of the petitioner on the basis of Exhibit-A that the cheque was not issued for payment of any debt, was rejected by the learned court below by considering the content of Exhibit-A and the fact that the same did not bear the signature of the petitioner. 14. The learned court below also considered the evidence of P.W. 2 who has stated that the cheque was given in his presence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no reliance can be placed on the Exhibit-A from the side of the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the said exhibit was marked as exhibit without any objection from the side of the complainant and was a document signed by the complainant and accordingly, Exhibit-A was an admitted document. 18. This Court finds that even if the said document Exhibit-A is taken as the admitted document from the side of the complainant as well, its content has been thoroughly discussed by the learned trial court and after discussing its content, the learned trial court has clearly recorded that the Exhibit-A does not help the petitioner in any way whatsoever. This Court finds that even if Exhibit-A is taken into consideration, the same is admitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed court below and none of the witnesses whose name appeared as witnesses on Exhibit-A deposed before the court to explain the circumstances under which it was issued. On the other hand, the P.W. 2 is the eye-witness of the entire transaction and has explained the circumstances under which the cheque was issued by the petitioner to the complainant and has fully supported the prosecution case. From the records of the case, it appears that the P.W. 2 clearly deposed that cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- was handed over to the petitioner by the complainant in his presence and the petitioner had issued the cheque in lieu of the same. P.W. 2 has not only clearly stated that the petitioner had asked for One Lakh rupees from the complainant, but the petitio....