TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Appellate Court affirmed judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court. Brief facts of the case: 2. Jaimal son of Hari Dass filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 pleaded therein that complainant obtained loan from bank for his personal use and after obtaining loan from bank accused approached complainant and told complainant that accused was in dire need of money. It is pleaded that complainant granted loan to accused to the tune of Rs. 93,000/- (Rupees ninety three thousand) and accused promised that he would pay back the loan amount along with interest within a period of one year. It is further pleaded that complainant approached the accused many times to repay the amount of loan but accused did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat convict would pay compensation to complainant amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty thousand). Feeling aggrieved against judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court accused filed appeal before learned Sessions Judge Solan and learned Sessions Judge Solan on dated 17.4.2014 dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court revisionist has filed the present revision petition. 5. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of revisionist and non-revisionists and Court also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination: 1) Whether judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was convened. There is further recital in the affidavit that accused agreed the liability of loan amount and thereafter issued cheque No. 0005449 dated 30.10.2008 to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/- (Rupees one lac eight thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that cheque was presented for encashment but same was returned back by the bank with remarks of insufficient fund. There is further recital in the affidavit that thereafter complainant issued demand notice to accused through registered letter but despite demand notice accused did not return the loan amount. 8. Following documentary evidence produced. (i) Ext. C-1 is original cheque to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/- dated 30.10.2008. (ii) Ext. C-2 is registered letter. (iii) Ext. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that registered notice Ext. C-4 was issued to revisionist vide postal receipt No. 9762 placed on record. Revisionist did not examine the Postman in order to prove that Postman did not visit the residential house of revisionist. There is report of Postman that Postman had visited the residential house of revisionist four times i.e. on 2.12.2008, 3.12.2008, 4.12.2008 and 5.12.2008. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist that oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the non-revisionists is contradictory and self-destructive is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has care....