Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. SANDESH, J
DINESH POOJARY – Appellant
Versus
MR. SADASHIVA PRABHU – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction established through cheque issuance and evidence of financial transaction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. presentation of bounced cheques deemed permissible under legal obligation. (Para 4 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction does not allow for evidence reappraisal; only errors of law can be addressed. (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. This revision petition is filed against the conviction order passed under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the revision petitioner with regard to the issuance of Cheques at Ex.P1 to P4 which have been bounced with the reason ‘account closed’. The legal notice was issued by the complainant but reply was not given by the revision petitioner and hence, the complaint was filed against the revision petitioner. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13. On the other hand revision petitioner/accused examined himself as DW1 and his brother examined as DW2 and also examined two more witnesses as DW3 and DW4 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D4. T
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
