SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Ved Prakash – Appellant
Versus
K. Lal & Sons – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the petitioner:Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—This Cr. Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 22.2.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Appeal No. 1/2012, whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the accused respondents and set-aside the judgment dated 13.7.2012 passed by the trial court convicting the accused respondent for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentencing him to undergo 1 year’s SI with fine of Rs.80,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month’s SI.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

“Complainant-petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the accused respondents. The trial court after recording the statement of complainant took cognizance against the accused under Section 138 of NI Act. The trial court framed charges against the accused, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused person were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 13.7.2012 convict
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top