MUKESH AGARWAL Vs. PRAMOD MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both these revisions involve the same dispute and are between the same parties, therefore, these are being decided together by this judgment and order.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel of the revisionist, it transpires that Mukesh Agarwal was convicted in two cases of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur vide common judgment and order dated 6.1.2014. His Criminal Appeals No. 43/2014 and 44/2014 against the judgment of the Magistrate also failed on 7.6.2014. So, he has preferred these revisions.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel of the revisionist has drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of PW1 wherein he has stated that he does not remember whether the amount given to the revisionist Mukesh Agarwal was shown by him in the income tax or not. This contention is wholly unsustainable and is rejected because in the normal course of money transactions between the parties, who are giving and taking the money in a small city, the same are not always shown in the income tax return.