9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete the contract work. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the parties on 21.8.1998. 4. It is further alleged that the first accused, who is the General Power of Attorney agent of the second accused, borrowed a sum of ₹ 2 lakhs on 10.1.2002 and another sum of ₹ 3,35,000/- on 11.2.2002 as hand loan from the complainant and issued two cheques for the aforesaid amounts. When those two cheques were presented for collection, they were returned dishonoured with an endorsement that there was insufficient funds in the account of the first accused. Having issued statutory notice to the first accused, a complaint has been lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. The petitioner, who is the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second accused, the first accused had the sole authority to operate the accounts opened by him in the name of M/s.Devaki Engineering Contractors. In fact, the second accused had been debarred from operating the said account. Having received hand loan, the first accused has allegedly issued two cheques, which bounced as there was no sufficient funds in the said account. Therefore, for such an existing liability of the first accused and the dishonour of cheques issued by the first accused on the account, which was under his total control, the second accused cannot be held responsible for such transaction. 11. It is not in dispute that the statutory notice was not issued to the second accused at all. It is a trite law that no prosecutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate to examine one more witness under Section 540, the power of the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings does not come within the ambit of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 15. That was a case where the criminal proceedings were sought to be quashed at a stage where almost all the witnesses except two were examined on the side of the prosecution on the ground that there was no evidence on record to establish the offences alleged against the accused and that there was suppression of material facts. 16. Quoting the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would contend that when the prosecution witnesses have been examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
