Petitieher filed an appeal. the lower appellate court on re-consideretien
of the matter concurred with the findings of the trial court and fiiemissed
the appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitienper submiie'
are issued by the partnership firm. :=.fl'he-..ri,e1hi:l.e{4.,ceec'ereA_'_Ve£1ct2'le ''
partnership fem cannot be eeld or.eg__2feeclA'tcs_v_l>'e eeldfe treepehdeht,
by the accused alone. The ccmplaihlezilg 'hes net'pree*'§icechany material
to show that, from which eeceunt. Re.fiClAlel.lefuhderfiectien 138 of N.l.Act is net proved. as the
" «--eomele'ihz;n}t has net" preeed the transaction between the petitioner end
V' the reesgeepiere.» ' ----.
A Counsel appearing for the reependent submitted that.
'the petitimjier and respondent are the close relatives. The petitioner was
“‘l–ihfi_hei_:clei crieie. in order to help the petitioner, the respondent agreed
telpurehase the running concern and in this regard. he had paid R520
ii iakhe to the petitioner. when the cheques were ciiehoneurecl. a notice
was leeued. if really the running concern belongs to the partnership
-4-
firm. the petitioner could not have kept quite even after receipt of notice.
No repiy is given to the tenet notice. He relied on Exs.P?’ anti*.i?8 –~
memorandum of undertaking wherein the petitioner
issue of cheque. He also submitted that the cheeoee..ioeior’ini””to
petitioner is not in dispute. The petitioner’has’e.i_ieeect’th.et.. nest’
anomer transaction and the cheques: are connection
traneaction. He reiied on the evioencepof Aéwgt’ ..ir:eii’ia:cused ends’
pointed out that, the accused atcimitsr-the.’rnon*ey due to~–thevv:§respondent.
but admits to the extent of Rs.2 .Wnett’Vthe.:trensaction is admitted
and nothing contrefyto the court and the tower
appeiiate court iieiriiciieince have concurrentiy
found in fa;v.ou,r_ettheiicornpiieinetrt eubrnitteci that. being the
concurreni:_ finciinn. it does .noi§au for interference.
7, _The”‘cese the ‘compiainent is that. in connection with
‘~ ptrrchttéie ofrunningh ‘concern. the amount was paid and when it was not
V.*..meterieiized;~ttheicheoues were issued. Though the defence is taken
that hitwae refrjunfning concern of the partnership fine. however. except
{the st.e’teni’ent’ot Manager of the State Bani: of indie. no documents are
it it ” prociucedto show that the business run by the petitioner is a partnership
nothing prevented the petitioner to produce documents to prove the
i ” seine. if petitioner takes a defence that, it is a partnership firm. it was
i ” unto him to prove the same. Apart trom this. the other defence taken by
the petitioner is that. there was a reai estate business. In this regarct. he
had examined DW—-3. but his evidence does not prove the case of the
petitioner. The cheques are concerned. they are issued the
petitioner and the account also shows that the petitioner
holder and further. though the signature on arid
memorandum of understanding is denied.:vhe£ it ‘dieoiosos eftei’ the ‘
cheques were issued, the petitioner has eh’t~:-2rédV_into the memoir-afndum.u
of undertaking agreeing to pay the azhoeint n’£’entioned”_;iri”%hebheque.” ‘
The evidence produced by th*e..’respondehiioieaily eetaizriiehes that. the
cheques were issued in conheoiioniivsiihiia and this is aiso
supported by other.’ m;ate_ria! reieoondent. When the
cheques have hash !he–..i’ni£iai Voieeumption under Section
139 of N.I,Ao.t, efi~ses”:’eepor:§’dent. To dietodge the said.
presumptioh. theie~eom.e*materia! to support the case of the
petitioner. Gonsioering tho? eiiiire’ evidence. i do not find there is any
_ error coighmifled eitiéehby the that count or the Eower appeiiate court and
have oohourrentiy found that. the offence has been
oro$ied_. if-iigimit i do not find any reason to interfere with the
. guciaoients _r=f-thvétttiai court and the appellate court.
V’ ” * L-Acooiidingly. the Re-visior: Petition faiis and same is dismissed.
iiiikwmh Sd/Q
Judgfi