ANIL Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Cr.Rev. No. 911/2008 as in both the petitions the petitioner is one and same and respondents are father and son and the judgment under challenge is also same which is dated 7.8.2008 passed in case No. 155/07 and 51 /2007 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as the "N.I. Act") and was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in each of the cases and imprisonment for a period of 2 years was modified with a direction to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- and imprisonment for a period of six months the present petition has been filed.

(2.) IN Cr.Rev. No. 910/2008 the complaint was filed by one Bhawanishankar on 9.1.2007 alleging that petitioner purchased soyabeen agricultural produce from the respondent and in lieu of that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was outstanding against the petitioner for which a cheque bearing No. 119148 was issued by the petitioner on 2.11.2006. In Cr.Rev. No. 911/2008 the complaint was filed by Vinod Kumar who happens to be son of Bhawanishankar on 10.1.2007 alleging that petitioner purchased Soyabeen agricultural produce and issued a cheque of Rs. 1,20,000/-bearing cheque No. 119149 dated 1.11.2006. In both the cases it was alleged that cheques were sent for collection and the same were returned by the concerned Bank. It was alleged that notice was issued in both the cases by registered post and UPC to the petitioner at his Ratlam and Mandsaur address. It was alleged that notice sent to the petitioner at Ratlam was not received by the petitioner even after receipt of intimation from the post office and notice sent at Mandsaur was returned with postal endorsement of refusal. It was alleged that by not making the payment in-spite of notice the petitioner has committed an offence which is punishable under Section 13 8 of the N.I. Act. It was prayed that after taking cognizance the petitioner be convicted.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that petitioner has been convicted illegally while petitioner has not committed any offence. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not considering the material omissions and contradic- tions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Counsel submits that the conviction and sentence be set aside.