9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Special leave to prefer an appeal u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding acquittal of accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The judgment discusses the case where the accused were acquitted of the offense under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant argued that there was enough evidence to show that M/s. Shah Enterprises had taken over the liability of M/s. Shah Agencies towards the applicant. The applicant pointed out various documents, including a letter and a notice of demand, to support their claim. However, the court noted discrepancies in the case presented by the applicant. The notice of demand addressed the second respondent as the Proprietor of M/s. Shah Enterprises and the third respondent as the Power of Attorney holder of Shah Enterprises, without specific mention of the liability transfer from M/s. Shah Agencies to M/s. Shah Enterprises. The court highlighted the different versions presented by the applicant in the complaint and the affidavit, indicating confusion regarding the party liable for the disputed cheques. Ultimately, the court found that the case made by the applicant did not clearly establish the liability transfer from M/s. Shah Agencies to M/s. Shah Enterprises, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of merit. The judgment emphasized the importance of consistency in the applicant's case regarding the liability for the disputed cheques. Discrepancies between the complaint and the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief raised doubts about the actual party responsible for the liability. The court noted that the complaint referred to M/s. Shah Enterprises as the proprietary concern, while the affidavit introduced M/s. Shah Agencies as regular customers, creating confusion regarding the entity liable for the debt. Additionally, the court highlighted the lack of explicit mention in the complaint regarding the transfer of liability from M/s. Shah Agencies to M/s. Shah Enterprises, further weakening the applicant's case. The judgment concluded that the inconsistencies in the applicant's submissions failed to establish a clear legal basis for challenging the acquittal of the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment concluded by stating that the observations made were limited to considering the grant of leave and should not be construed as findings on the rights and liabilities of the parties. It clarified that the order would not impact any other pending proceedings, maintaining a narrow scope for the court's decision.
|
