JANARDAN SINGH PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against judgment and orders dated 30.10.2009 and 9.4.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur-Dehat and Sessions Judge, Kanpur-Dehat.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that learned Courts below have wrongly proved the evidence on prosecution case. The complaint was time barred therefore, no cognizance should have been taken. It has also been submitted that he has given some blank cheques to his partner who has issued the cheques to third person by misusing his authority therefore, the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act is not made out.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has defended the impugned order and has submitted that the revisionist had issued the alleged cheques and has also verified it by a deed on stamp paper on 8.4.2002.