TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1096
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SJ-02, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Crl. Appeal bearing Cr. No. 525/2019 which was filed against impugned judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed by Sh. Anubhav Jain, Ld. MM, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in C.C. No. 2618/2017 U/s 138 NI Act whereby the Ld. MM was pleased to hold the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 7,00,000/- which completely shall be paid as compensation to the complainant, by which the Ld. ASJ-02, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and modified the sentence and directed to pay fine of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent No. 2 and in default of payment of fine within 4 weeks, he shall undergo simple im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and order on sentence, by filing criminal appeal No. 525/2019 before the Ld. ASJ and the Ld. ASJ vide impugned judgment dated 26.03.2021 disposed of the appeal filed by the revisionist and modified the sentence to the extent that a fine of Rs. 7,00,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the respondent No. 2 and if the fine of Rs. 7,00,000/- is not paid within 4 weeks, the revisionist shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Ld. ASJ is under challenge in the present revision petition. 4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, State is the proforma party so arguments were advanced by the Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 2. I have also perused the records of this case. 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regard in 2014, however, no such complaint has been placed on record by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court. It is further submitted that the revisionist has not denied that the cheque in question bears his signature and that the revisionist led different stories regarding the cheque in question i.e., on one hand he stated that the cheque was handed over to one Pankaj Bhalla and the same got stolen whereas on the other hand, he stated that the cheque was given as a security cheque and the same was misused by the complainant/respondent No. 2 after committing forgery. 7. Now coming to the legal position in this case and taking into consideration the various provisions of Cr.P.C. which have been discussed in various judgments time and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal (crl.) 65-66 of 2002 and K.Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, [(1999)7 SCC 510]. 10. In the instant case, the revisionist has taken different stands with regard to the cheque in question. It was stated that the cheque in question was lost and a complaint in this regard was also lodged in the year 2014 but the original complaint has not been placed on record by the revisionist. The revisionist neither informed the concerned bank about the cheque in question, which got stolen nor requested the bank to get the payment stopped against the said cheque, which shows his malafides. The revisionist has also taken the plea that the cheque in question was handed over to one Pankaj Bhalla and the same got stolen. However, the said fact was not....