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

2022 Supreme(MP) 90

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
Sitaram – Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiyalal – Respondent


Advocates:
Siddharth Sharma for applicant;
A. V. Bhardwaj for respondent.

ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this criminal revision being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.78/2008 on 26.8.2010 by which the Appellate Court has modified the judgment passed by the learned JMFC, Sironj, in Criminal Case No.580/2006 on 10.3.2008 and converted the fine into compensation under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this revision are that respondent Kanhaiyalal and petitioner Seetaram are relatives. Respondent performs the work of goldsmith. Petitioner contacted him to purchase gold ornaments and assured that he will pay the price of aforesaid ornaments in three months. Relying upon his assurance, respondent gave him gold ornaments. The petitioner gave him cheque No.1111024 dated 6.7.2005 of Rs.2,87,500/- and cheque No.1111025 dated 21.7.2005 of Rs.2,87,500 of State Bank of India, Branch Sironj. The respondent presented the said cheque on 10.8.2005 in State Bank of India, Branch Sironj. The bank informed that as said account has been closed, it could not be encashed. Thereafter respondent gave registered notice on 27.8.2005 and demanded money within fifteen days. The petitioner on 31.8

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