Court upholds ₹10 lakh fine in cheque bounce case
Accused said complainant misused cheque issued as security to ensure payment
03/10/2019, NIRNIMESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI
A sessions court has dismissed an appeal by an accused against the imposition of a fine of ₹10 lakh on him in a cheque bounce case, saying that he failed to rebut that he had issued the cheque in the complainant’s name to repay a loan of ₹5 lakh.
While punishing the accused, a Metropolitan Magistrate had directed that ₹9 lakh of the fine amount be paid to the complainant.
In the appeal, the accused argued that the complainant had misused the cheque issued as a security to ensure payment to her in lieu of sale of a piece of land.
His counsel further said that he was not issued a legal notice before the complainant moved the court for the recovery of loan and that the he was not allowed to examine a defence witness.
All arguments dismissed
Additional Sessions Judge S.K. Malhotra, however, dismissed all the arguments and maintained the conviction and the sentence of the accused.
“No evidence is led by the appellant/accused in support of his plea that he had given the cheque in question to Vinod Kumar Saxena [complainant’s brother] as a security. Appellant has miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that cheque in question was not issued to discharge legally recoverable debt,” the judge also said.
On the argument about the denial of an opportunity to examine a defence witnesses, the judge said: “The trial court granted six opportunities to the appellant to summon remaining defence witnesses but steps for summoning Vinod Kumar Saxena as a defence witness were not taken by the appellant and ultimately defence evidence was closed.”
Dismissing the submission that no legal notice was issued to the accused by the complainant, Mr. Malhotra said, “Legal notice was sent through registered AD post to accused/appellant. Although the said notice was returned back with the report ‘address incomplete’, appellant has given the same address in his appeal, on which legal notice was sent through registered post. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn that legal notice was sent on the correct address and he deliberately did not receive it.”
Accused said complainant misused cheque issued as security to ensure payment
03/10/2019, NIRNIMESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI
A sessions court has dismissed an appeal by an accused against the imposition of a fine of ₹10 lakh on him in a cheque bounce case, saying that he failed to rebut that he had issued the cheque in the complainant’s name to repay a loan of ₹5 lakh.
While punishing the accused, a Metropolitan Magistrate had directed that ₹9 lakh of the fine amount be paid to the complainant.
In the appeal, the accused argued that the complainant had misused the cheque issued as a security to ensure payment to her in lieu of sale of a piece of land.
His counsel further said that he was not issued a legal notice before the complainant moved the court for the recovery of loan and that the he was not allowed to examine a defence witness.
All arguments dismissed
Additional Sessions Judge S.K. Malhotra, however, dismissed all the arguments and maintained the conviction and the sentence of the accused.
“No evidence is led by the appellant/accused in support of his plea that he had given the cheque in question to Vinod Kumar Saxena [complainant’s brother] as a security. Appellant has miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that cheque in question was not issued to discharge legally recoverable debt,” the judge also said.
On the argument about the denial of an opportunity to examine a defence witnesses, the judge said: “The trial court granted six opportunities to the appellant to summon remaining defence witnesses but steps for summoning Vinod Kumar Saxena as a defence witness were not taken by the appellant and ultimately defence evidence was closed.”
Dismissing the submission that no legal notice was issued to the accused by the complainant, Mr. Malhotra said, “Legal notice was sent through registered AD post to accused/appellant. Although the said notice was returned back with the report ‘address incomplete’, appellant has given the same address in his appeal, on which legal notice was sent through registered post. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn that legal notice was sent on the correct address and he deliberately did not receive it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment