TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d filed the complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koothuparamba alleging that a cheque dated 30.04.2003, executed and issued by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, towards repayment of the amount due from him, was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in his account, and that despite statutory notice having been issued, he did not care to make payment of the cheque amount. In the above complaint, which was taken on to file as S.T.C No.5806/2003, the complainant/first respondent and one witness were examined as PW1 and PW2 and six documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P6 from the part of the complainant. The petitioner did not opt to adduce any defence evidence. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... debt. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the complainant/first respondent had not revealed before the Trial Court either by way of pleadings or by evidence as to the exact date when he had handed over the impugned cheque to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, both the courts below failed to take note of the above omission on the part of the de facto complainant. I find no merit in the above challenge raised by the petitioner. It is seen from the records that the first respondent had given statement before the Trial Court as PW1 that the petitioner had obtained an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- from him to improve the business of the petitioner under the promise that the first respondent wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr : 2015 (3) SCC 123, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous....