9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 138, therefore, has not been dealt with. On this ground itself the impugned judgment has to be upheld. Further, the fact that the complainant has been giving different dates on which the cheque has been issued also shows that he is economical with truth. It is necessary to note that one who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. More often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. Appeal dismissed. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 1999 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2019 - K.R.SHRIRAM, J. None for appellant. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State. Mrs. Vrishali Raje i/b. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed on 5th July 1997. 4. Process was issued and the plea of the accused was recorded on 19th January 1998. Plea was read over and explained in Marathi to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused does not deny having purchased grapes but states that the cheque of ₹ 2 lakhs was given only as a security cheque and he paid ₹ 2,25,000/- to the complainant in three installments of ₹ 25,000/-, ₹ 1,85,000/- and ₹ 15,000/-, which was paid to a third party on the instructions of the complainant. Accused says that he gave blank cheque as security. He had put the signature but no date or amount or name was filled in. Therefore, there was no legal liability due. Moreover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding to the complainant, the cheque was issued to him only on 23rd May 1997, then the cheque bearing no.613072, which was dishonoured, would have been with the accused. In such a case, the accused giving stop payment instructions for that cheque on 12th September 1996 would not arise. A cheque is also valid for only six months. So the stop payment instructions have been given almost 16 months prior to the date of the cheque. It is also not the case of the complainant that the accused issued a post dated cheque dated 23rd May 1997. 7. Secondly, the complainant also states that he had been paid ₹ 25,000/- in cash and he did not issue any receipt for that amount. The fact that he had received ₹ 25,000/- in cash is not men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments squarely applies to the facts of this case and there can be no other conclusion that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability. The important ingredient for the offence punishable under Section 138, therefore, has not been dealt with. On this ground itself the impugned judgment has to be upheld. Further, the fact that the complainant has been giving different dates on which the cheque has been issued also shows that he is economical with truth. It is necessary to note that one who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. More often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains inde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
