9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Maintainability of the complaint filed by one of the partners of the firm. - Proof of liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves five criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate in five cases. The complaints were filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Appellant against the Respondent for dishonoring cheques issued in discharge of a debt. 2. The trial court acquitted the accused, stating the complaint was not properly filed and the liability was not proven under Section 138. The Appellant argued that the complaint, filed by one of the partners of the firm, was maintainable. The Appellant relied on precedent and contended the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. 3. The Respondent's counsel argued that the trial court's decision was correct as there was no legal evidence to prove the cheques were issued to discharge any liability. It was also contended that since the Company was not impleaded as an accused, the accused could not be held guilty under Section 141 of the Act. 4. The High Court found the trial court's decision erroneous. It held that the complaint filed by one of the partners was proper, citing precedent. The court also emphasized the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, stating the accused failed to rebut it, and the trial court overlooked this provision. 5. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the trial court's judgment, and directed a fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties were instructed to appear before the Trial Court for further proceedings on a specified date.
|
