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

2019 Supreme(Ori) 498

D.DASH
Prasanta Naik – Appellant
Versus
Subhendu Mohapatra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M/s. A.K. Nanda and G.N. Sahu, Advocates, for the Appellant; M/s P.K. Jena, K.L. Sen, D P. Mohapatra & S. Mohapatra, Advocates, for the Respondent
Cases Referred
Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 74 OCR SC 87 2019 1 OLR SC -447
K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan; 2007 3 Apex Court Judgments 429 SC
K. Subramani vs. K. Damodara Naidu, 119 2015 CLT 1 SC
Kamala S. vs. Vidyadharan M.J., (2007) 2 , Apex Court Judgments 096 SC
Kishan Rao vs. Shankargouda, (2018) 71 OCR SC 662 : (2018) II OLR SC -733
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde; 2008 1 Apex Court Judgments 412 SC
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Manvi vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 35 OCR SC 43 : (2006) 6 SCC 39
M/s Kumar Exports vs. M''s Sharma Carpets, (2009) 42 OCR SC 723 : (2009) 1 Apex Court Judgments 487 SC
R. Vijayan vs. Baby, (2011) 50 OCR SC 795
Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 46 OCR SC 562 : (2010) 2 Apex Court Judgments 285 SC
Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy, (2016) II OLR SC -1085

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - The petitioner by filing this revision has assailed the judgment dated 07.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Crl. Appeal No. 10/01/18 of 2009/13 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2009 read with the subsequent order dated 17.3.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh in ICC Case No. 19 of 2007 (T.C. NO. 514 of 2007), convincting the petitioner (accused) for offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 8,90,000/ - (Rupees eight lakh ninety thousand).

2. The facts of the case are as under:-

    The opposite party No. 1 as the complainant states that accused had taken friendly loans from time to time to the tune of Rs. 6,30,000/- from him with promise to pay. But he did not pay the same despite repeated demands. Ultimately in order to discharge the debt and liability, the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 6,30,000/-bearing No. 13341 dated 6.3.2007 drawn on his account with Bolangir Anchalika Grama Bank, Sundargarh. The cheque being presented by the complainant on 23.03.2007, the same boun

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