9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque dated June 4, 1999 for a sum of ₹ 4,61,400 in discharge of a debt. Shortly thereafter the complainant received a sum of ₹ 2,26,400 from the accused as part payment. Thus, according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19, 2003 in R.Gopikuttan Pillai v. Sankara Narayanan Nair in Crl.A.No.270 of 1997. In the said decision the learned Judge held that ........ the expression the said amount of money appearing in clause (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must certainly refer to the amount of money due under the cheque less amounts, if any, paid already towards the liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be settled is to the tune of the amount covered by Ext.P1, he could not have made use of that cheque for such liability. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to a decision of the Madras High Court in Angu Parameshwari Textiles v. Sri.Rajam Co. (2001 DCR 648) wherein it has been held that if the cheque is more than the amount of the debt due, ..... Section 138 cannot be attracted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
