Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (11) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntence dated 24.08.2022) 1. The Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC, 1973') has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned Order/Judgment dated 16.08.2022 and the impugned Order on Sentence dated 24.08.2022, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in CT Case No. 4137/2017 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash, in the month of July, 2016, from the respondent No. 2, with whom he had long relationships. The petitioner issued cheque bearing Nos. 682924, 682925 and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss-examination but the son has not been examined by the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 had claimed that he had arranged the funds of Rs. 15,00,000/- at an interest of 24% but has failed to disclose the source from where he arranged the loan amount for the petitioner. It is further claimed that the petitioner has already paid the loan amount within three months as promised by him though, no acknowledgement receipt was given by the respondent. He had demanded the cheques issued by him from the respondent No. 2 after he had made the cash payment, but the respondent refused to return them on the ground that they were not available with him. 6. The petitioner has placed reliance on Kumar Export vs. Sharma Carpets, 2009 II AD (S....