Anil Pandey vs Idbi Bank Ltd.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4548 Del

                 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Date of Reserve: 6th September, 2010
                                                  Date of Order: 27th September, 2010

+CRL. M.C. 2867 OF 2010, CRL. M.A. NO. 14619-20/2010
%
                                                                             27.09.2010
ANIL PANDEY                                                              ... Petitioner
                               Through: Mrs Amita Gupta, Adv.
                               Mr. Rahat Bansal, Adv.

               Versus

IDBI BANK LTD.                                                       ... Respondents
                               Through:


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed against the order dated

13th August, 2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge whereby he dismissed a

Revision filed by the petitioner against an order of learned MM convicting the

petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. A perusal of the order of learned MM as well as the order of learned Sessions

Judge would show that both the courts below have given concurrent findings that the

cheques were issued by the petitioner for legal liability/debit.

3. The petitioner had taken a loan from the bank and issued cheques for re-

payment of the loan. The petitioner stopped paying loan after some time and the

cheques issued by him towards payment of the loan got dishonoured. He had taken

personal loan of ` 3,92,000/-. Out of that, he had paid only ` 1,54,000/-. Both the

courts found that the petitioner was served with the notice of dishonour of the

cheque, he did not reply the notice and took a wrong plea to the court that he had not

received the notice. The plea of the petitioner that the cheques were issued only as

a security was not proved by the petitioner.

4. In view of the concurrent finding given by the two courts below on facts, I find

no reason to interfere with the order of learned Sessions Judge under Section 482

Cr. P.C. The petition is hereby dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2010                                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm