9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t') by reversing the judgment and order dated 30.10.2003 in case complaint No.142 of 24.07.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, which had convicted respondent No.1-accused of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-company. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and order of the trial Court could not have been reversed by the lower Appellate Court that too for flimsy reasons recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court. According to him, the complainant 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess-box and proved all the above facts and not only that he also proved that there was liability against respondent No.1 in the matter of purchase of goods from the appellant-company. It is not necessary for me to discuss the same evidence over and again and it would be enough, if I quote discussion made by the learned trial Court on the evidence in Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of its judgment dated 30.10.2003, which read thus:- "9. The accused in the present case has been charged u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as per which where any cheque drawn by a person 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bathinda stated that as per their record cheque Ex-CW-2/A No.233565 was presented in their bank by Wockchardt Ltd. i.e. complainant company which had current account in their bank bearing No.43346. This cheque was sent on 06.05.1999 to State Bank of India, Cheog, which was returned dis-honured on account of in-sufficent funds. He relied upon the intimation letter dated 26.05.1999 Ex-P1. PW-5 Sameer Tandon, Advocate proved on file legal notice Ex-CW-5/A, which was sent by him on 09.06.1999 to the accused calling upon him to make the payment to the complainant. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant-company was afterthought. All the reasons given by the learned trial Court above are based on evidence which I have checked from the record. However, lower Appellate Court recorded strange reasons for recording order of acquittal. In the first place, the lower Appellate Court has not given any importance to the fact that respondent No.1- accused did not reply the legal notice that was issued to him under Section 138 of the NI Act nor did he take any defence at that time. Apart from that he did not examine anybody or himself before the 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-acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
