2012 (3) TMI 676 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Criminal revision petition u/s 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment convicting for offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Summary:
1. The respondent filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Act against the petitioner for dishonoring a cheque. The petitioner denied owing any amount to the respondent.
2. The complainant presented the cheque which was dishonored, leading to a legal notice and subsequent complaint.
3. The convict claimed innocence and false implication, denying any liability towards the complainant.
4. The convict did not provide any evidence in his defense.
5. The convict appealed the conviction but was unsuccessful, leading to the current revision petition.
6. The counsel for the convict argued lack of proof of nexus with the firm, citing relevant legal precedents.
7. The counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant had proved his connection with the firm.
8. The court considered the arguments and legal precedents, including the requirement for the complainant to prove nexus with the firm.
9. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Milind Shripad Chandurkar case regarding maintaining a complaint u/s 138 of the Act.
10. The court analyzed the evidence and found the complainant's proof of nexus with the firm insufficient.
11. The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the conviction and ordering the refund of the fine to the convict if realized within the prescribed time.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, including the issues involved, arguments presented by both parties, analysis of evidence, and the final decision of the court.