TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strate, 19th Court, Calcutta, in a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (In short N.I.Act,) being C Case No. 0398214 of 2014, by which the trial court convicted the appellant under section 138 of the N.I.Act, and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the opposite party no. 1, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The brief background of the complaint's case is that the convict/petitioner was one of the employee of the complainant's Company who had been entrusted with an amount of Rs. 6,95,000/- only deposited to him from time to time for the company's use but the said convict utilised the said money for his personal use and thereaf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the complainant mentioning that he does not owe any debt and that he issued the cheque to the complainant for any other reason. Accordingly, Court below also held that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act, by adducing any cogent evidence. The Court below further held that the exhibited document shows that the demand notice was duly served upon the accused but in spite of service he neither gave any reply nor has paid the cheque amount to the complainant. Accordingly, trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him as above. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the convict as appellant preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2018 and the Appellate Court also affirmed the jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers from inadequate reasoning. He further submits that examination of the petitioner under section 313 of the Cr. P.C. has not been conducted by the trial court in accordance with law and thereby it vitiates the entire proceeding. The impugned judgment suffers from total non-application of judicial mind and as such Mr. Ganguly, has prayed for setting aside the judgment impugned. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the complainant. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the PW1 on behalf of the complainant, it appears that the complainant has proved the impugned cheque being no. 199456 dated 16.04.2014 for Rs. 5,00,000/- which has been duly signed by the accused and issued in favour of the complainant. Said cheque is marked....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....party herein and also on behalf of the convict, I have no other option but to conclude that it has been clearly established during trial that the cheque has been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in discharge of his legally enforceable debt. The demand notice was served upon the accused persons within the statutory period and considering all these there is nothing to interfere with the observation made by the trial court as well as made by the court below because the judgments impugned have not resulted in any gross or manifest failure of justice, nor has there been any illegality or perversity committed by the courts below while passing the impugned judgments. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court dated 23.0....