The applicant prefers the appeal against the conviction in cheque bouncing case before High Court. His earlier appeal before Sessions Court was dismissed.
Facts leading to case are that the complainant was doing the transaction of sale and purchase of shares through accused since last thirteen years. On instruction the applicant sold the shares and received the amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-. But applicant did not pay the amount to respondent. However, after negotiations MOU was executed and post-dated cheques were issued by the applicant. Cheques bounced when presented, complainant filed the complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act.
Counsel for the applicant submits that, learned magistrate and Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that, MOU was executed for the sale proceeds of earlier transactions. He took court through entire evidence and submits that, there was no debt. These cheques were issued for security.
Court observed that, applicant failed to take objection to MOU at the appropriate stage. Therefore the objection was rejected by both lower courts. Further, respondent no. 1 and his witnesses have been extensively cross examined by the applicant however witnesses were unshaken. The court finds that, MOU have no relevance with earlier transactions. Therefore there is no perversity in findings of trial court and 1st appellate court in recording conviction of accused. Hence revision dismissed.
Shri Radhyeshyam Dhoot vs. Vishnukumar Kalantri, Aurangabad