A court here has dismissed an appeal by a man against award of four months imprisonment to him in a cheque bounce case.
A Magistrate court had convicted and awarded the sentence to him on a complaint.
Dismissing the appeal by the accused, Additional Sessions Judge Suresh Kumar Gupta said, “Appellant has not made the payment of the cheques in question to the respondent [complainant]. He has not even shown his inclination to make the payment of the cheques in question to the respondent.”
“There is nothing on record to take a lenient view in favour of the appellant. To my mind, nothing is brought on record by the appellant to take a different view with respect to the sentence awarded by the trial court. There is nothing on record to interfere with the order on sentence passed by the trial court. Hence, order on sentence is also upheld,’’ the Judge further said.
‘Orally agreed’
The complaint stated that the appellant had orally agreed to supply a four-wheeler to the complainant and received Rs. 6.42 lakh for it from him.
However, the appellant purchased the vehicle in his own name for Rs. 5.63 lakh.
Thereafter, he promised to refund the amount to him and issued five cheques, including one cheque for Rs. 1.5 lakh, as a part payment.
But all the cheques were dishonoured on presentation to the bank, the complaint said.
Thereupon, the complainant lodged an first information report against the appellant.
When he was arrested, he gave an assurance that cheques would be honoured and issued two cheques of Rs. 1.5 lakh each which were also dishonoured on presentation to the bank with the remarks “payment stopped by the drawer”.
Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Upholding the Magistrate court order, the Judge said, “The entire evidence on the file shows that respondent has proved all the ingredients incorporated under Section 138 of the Act. The appellant has been rightly held guilty and convicted under Section 138 of the Act.”
Appellant has not made the payment of the cheques in question to the respondent [complainant]. He has not even shown his inclination to make the payment of the cheques in question to the respondent
Suresh Kumar Gupta
Additional Sessions Judge
Source: Read Full Article
