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

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 585

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Triloki Singh, son of Late Tarkeshwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A.K. Sahani
For the Opposite Party : Anish Mishra

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The court acquitted the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act due to failure to prove essential timelines and service of legal notice, and perverse conviction lacking record of legal notice [20000302170027][20000302170024] - Absence of exhibited legal notice and date of dispatch/service undermined the prosecution’s case under NI Act, Section 138 [20000302170020][20000302170022] - Revision allowed; lower courts’ judgments set aside; petitioner acquitted; records returned; proceedings pending closed [20000302170027][20000302170028][20000302170031]

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


ORDER :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Anish Mishra, learned counsel for the State, Advocate.

3. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

4. Present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19th September 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No.20 of 2006, affirming the judgment of conviction, but modifying the sentence of the petitioner in connection with the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 (Hereinafter referred as N.I. Act).

5. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment and sentence dated 27.02.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in C.P. Case No.189 of 1997 (T.R. No.442 of 2006), under Section 138 of N.I. Act and was sentenced for simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

6. The learned Appellate Court modified the sentence and directed that the petitioner would pay a fine of Rs.2,10,000/- a

        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