Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (12) TMI 1761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t there was liability against respondent No.1 in the matter of purchase of goods from the appellant-company. The complainant had proved its case with precision that the cheque was dishonored, though, the same was issued by respondent No.1 towards price of the goods. The trial Court also found that the defence taken by respondent No.1 that the cheque was stolen by the appellant-company was afterthought - The very object of brining section 138 of NI Act and provision of Section 139 of NI Act for presumption was for early disposal of the claims of the parties. The said object was thus, defeated by the lower Appellate Court by giving reasons that the account book that was proved was not sufficient when the same is also evidence under Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and by producing of the record required for proving the case and not only that there was presumption in favour of the appellant that was raised against respondent No.1-accused. The learned lower Appellate Committed committed an error in giving the reasons for acquitting respondent No.1-accused as if it was trying a civil suit ignoring the presumption that arose for dishonor of cheque. He has taken me through the evidence of the complainant-witness and the record. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1- accused opposed the appeal and argued supporting the impugned judgment of the lower Appellate Court. He also supported the reasons recorded therein that the appellant had not prove .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit in that account is in-sufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed offence. 10. In the case in hand, as per the complainant's case cheque Ex-CW-2/A was issued by the accused for a sum of ₹ 4,17,148/- of an account maintained by him with his banker State Bank of India in favour of the complainant i.e. Wockc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 12. This cheque was dated 30.04.1999 and it was presented for encashment in May 1999 vide memo Ex-CW- 4 on 26.05.1999. The complainant was intimated with regard to the non-encashment of the cheque for want of insufficient funds. Complainant on 09.06.1999 served a legal notice upon the accused. On non-receipt of any reply and payment from the accused, the present complaint was filed by him on 24.07.1999. Thus all the formalities as stipulated u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were completed by the complainant in time. 13. From the above evidence led by the complainant, it is clear that in discharge of his liability which is clear from the statement of account referred to by the complainant in his evidence, the accused has issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Court to prove to the contrary. He preferred kept quiet throughout. In that event, the presumption available under Section 138 of the NI Act was required to be raised against respondent No.1-accuesd since respondent No.1 did not prove anything contrary. But then the lower Appellate Court has not given any importance to the said provision and on the contrary, as if it was dealing with the civil suit sought the evidence which is ordinarily tendered before the civil Court in civil suit. The very object of brining section 138 of NI Act and provision of Section 139 of NI Act for presumption was for early disposal of the claims of the parties. The said object was thus, defeated by the lower Appellate Court by giving reasons that the account .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates