9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to judgment and order of acquittal u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issue 1: Facts and Background The appellant advanced loans to the accused and received cheques which bounced due to insufficient funds, leading to the filing of complaints u/s 138 of the NI Act. Issue 2: Trial Proceedings Complainant and accused were examined, documents were presented, and the Trial Court acquitted the accused, prompting the filing of appeals. Issue 3: Contention of Appellant Appellant argued that the Trial Court erred in allowing respondents to file affidavits instead of chief examination, contrary to the law, and sought to set aside the acquittal orders. Issue 4: Respondents' Defense Respondents' counsel contended that the Trial Court followed correct procedure and there was no need to remit the matter back for further examination. Issue 5: Legal Provision Section 145 of the NI Act allows the complainant to give evidence by affidavit, but this provision does not extend to the accused. Issue 6: Precedent and Interpretation Citing a Supreme Court decision, it was highlighted that the legislative intent does not permit accused to give evidence on affidavit, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures. Judgment: The High Court held that the Trial Court erred in accepting affidavits from the accused instead of requiring them to enter the witness box. The acquittal orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the Trial Court for proper examination of the accused. The Court directed expedited disposal of the case within three months.
|
