2022 (2) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1-Bank. 2. By the present Revision Application, the Applicant (original Accused), has approached this Court challenging concurrent orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, and the Sessions Court, Margao. This is a matter arising out of a complaint filed by the Respondent-Bank under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (said Act, for short). The Magistrate has convicted the Applicant for offence under the said provisions and imposed a sentence upon him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,65,000/- to Respondent-Bank. It is undisputed that the cheque amount was Rs. 3,60,910/-. 3. It was the case of the Respondent-Bank, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the fact that the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured and the Respondent-Bank was constrained to file the complaint under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act.   5. The Applicant resisted the claims of the Respondent-Bank as a result of which the matter went to trial before the Court of Magistrate. After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced him in the aforesaid manner. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant filed an Appeal before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2020. As a result, the Applicant is before this Court challenging the concurrent findings rendered against him. 7. Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s issued to return the said amount along with interest. On this basis, it was submitted that the aspect of legal debt or liability was correctly appreciated by the Magistrate, while convicting and sentencing the Applicant and that the Sessions Court was also justified in dismissing the Appeal. 9. This Court has heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The case of the Respondent-Bank was that although the loan amount was disbursed for a particular purpose, the utilization of the same did not appear to be for the said purpose. There was reference made to certain RTO documents which were forged, due to which, the Respondent-bank became aware that immediate action was required in respect of the loan disbursed to the Appl....