Autorickshaw driver gets two years in jail in cheque dishonour case

Autorickshaw driver gets two years in jail in cheque dishonour case
Surat: A local court convicted an auto-rickshaw driver in case of dishonouring of a cheque issued to repay borrowed money and sentenced him to two years in jail. The court did not accept the argument of the accused that the complainant did not show the details of the cash lent in IT returns.
The court of additional chief judicial magistrate, Manesh Shukla, convicted Shridhar alias Pintoo Hazare for allegedly not paying Rs 4.5 lakh under Negotiable Instrument (NI) Act. The convict is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and an additional six months in jail if he fails to deposit the fine amount in the court.
Autorickshaw driver gets two years in jail in cheque dishonour case

The court further ordered Hazare to deposit Rs 4.5 lakh as fine in the court within 30 days. While allowing the convict to challenge the verdict in 30 days, the court ordered the fine amount to be paid to the complainant Gokul Chaudhary as compensation. Hazare had borrowed the money in September 2019.
Complainant Chaudhary approached the court after the cheque issued by Hazare as repayment of his money was dishonoured. The cheque of Rs 4.5 lakh was returned by the bank mentioning ‘funds insufficient’.
During the trial, the complainant produced his income tax return in court to prove that he is financially well off and able to lend money. The accused's lawyer, however, argued that the details of the money Chaudhary had lent Hazare is not mentioned in the IT return.
“This case is uncommon since the court did not accept the argument of the accused that there is no mention of the lent money. As per law it is necessary to show the details of lent money in IT Return but we argued that as per NI Act it is not unlawful,” said Ashwin Jogadiya, Chaudhary's lawyer.
The court accepted the complainant's argument that he had established business and he lent the money from the cash he had. “It was also proved in the court that the accused issued the cheque with his signature to repay the money lent. The accused was refusing to receive any money from the complainant,” added Jogadiya.
Start a Conversation
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
FacebookTwitterInstagramKOO APPYOUTUBE