9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttal in CC No. 24 of 1992, the complainant preferred this appeal. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 11-7-1995 in CC. No. 24 of 1992 acquitted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). The appellant before this Court strenuously contended that in the light of the decree obtained by him in O.S.No. 1204 of 1991 on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s his further case that on the next day he sent post-dated cheque along with a letter. But in the witness box he categorically submitted that he paid the amount from his salaries and he is not maintaining any account and he is not an Income Tax assessee. Though he does Real Estate business and earns lakhs of rupees every year, he is not filing Income Tax returns. When the very fact of giving amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he complainant failed to prove satisfactorily that he has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of ₹ 1,25,000/- and more so, by way of cheque and his failure to prove that the amount was actually drawn by the accused, the accused cannot be punished for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. 3. Further I have seen Ex.P. 2 where in the entire body of the letter was typed but only the sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
