Vadodara: A sessions court upheld the conviction of the accused in the cheque return case challenging the verdict of the trial court.

image : Freepik

Vadodara, August 10, 2023, Thursday

In the cheque return case, the trial court convicted the accused Ramilaben Sureshbhai Shah (resident of Kamla Park Society, Waghodia Road, Vadodara) and ordered her to pay one-year simple imprisonment and rs 1.5 lakh as compensation. Aggrieved by this order, the accused said. Prof. An appeal was filed in the sessions court here under Section 374 of the Code to set aside the trial court's order. While hearing this, the court upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed the objection petition of the petitioner.

On behalf of the petitioner, advocate S.B. Rana argued that the complainant Jadavbhai L. There was no identification between Prajapati (resident of Shantivan Society, New Sama Road, Vadodara) and the accused. So no financial transaction is possible with a stranger. The accused's cheque is with the complainant and the complainant has been requested to cancel the order of the trial court and make a false complaint. On behalf of the same party, lawyer Narendra J. Mishra and U.P. Gupte had contended that the accused's son, Jignesh, had given the sale deed to the complainant stating that the plots belonged to him and later took Rs 1.5 lakh from the complainant to  vacate the possession of the shepherds in another plot after the accused's son came to know that he had cheated. The plot was then vacated and documented in the name of the complainant. The accused then wrote down the disputed cheque while the complainant was extorting money. The trial court has convicted the accused in the case. There is no case to amend it and the present appeal of the accused is requested to be dismissed. While AGP BS Purohit argued on behalf of the government that the accused is presumed to have given the cheque as his legal liability. The accused have failed to refute the presumption. The appeal of the petitioner/accused should be dismissed if no error is found in the order of the trial court. After examining the arguments of both the parties and the evidence, the 12th AD. Sessions Judge Atulkumar Shravanbhai Patil noted that the defence had defended not having the capacity to pay Rs 1.5 lakh in their arguments to discuss the present case. Considering the entire record of the trial court, the defence has not been able to bring on record the fact of how the controversial cheque of the accused came into the custody of the complainant and was misused. So that the complainant party has succeeded in proving the amount of dues, the defence party has failed to refute the assumptions, the present application is not allowed. Thus, the court ruled in favour of the complainant and upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed the objection petition of the petitioner.