9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter obtaining special leave of this court, filed the present appeal praying that the order of acquittal be set aside and respondent no.1 be convicted. 2. I have heard Mrs. Kavita Pawar, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mr. Amar Bhatt, the learned counsel for respondent no.1. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant' and respondent no.1 as 'the accused.' 4. The accused had issued eight cheques in favour of M/s. Bell Marshall Tele System Limited. These cheques, though were drawn on different dates, were presented for payment on 10th May 2006. All were dishonoured. Since, even after making a demand, the amount of the cheques was not pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inant has described himself as the complainant, and has not described the Company as the complainant. In paragraph 1 of the complaint, the complainant has kept vague, as to in whose favour the cheques were issued by the accused. The relevant part of the first paragraph of the complaint reads as under : 1. I say that in due consideration and against legal enforceable liability of the sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) accused have issued eight cheques as under :- Sr. Cheque Date Amount in Rs. Drawn on 1. 660694 10.3.2006 20,000/- HDFC Bank Ltd. Vasai(E) Branch 2. 660695 10.2.2006 20,000/- '' '' 3. 660688 10.2.2006 20,000/- '' '' 4. 660689 10.5.2006 20,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction was a loan transaction. It is not clear whether the Company was authorized to do the business of advancing loan with interest. The possibility, of the complaint not having been filed in the name of the Company keeping this aspect in mind, therefore, cannot be ruled out. 10. Though the entire reasoning of the learned Magistrate cannot be accepted, in the ultimate analysis, it must be held that, the complaint had not been filed by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheques in question. Section 142 of the N.I. Act leaves no manner of doubt that a complaint in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 thereof, would be maintainable only if it is filed by a payee or the holder in due course. 11. In this view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
