9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- Proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are quasi-criminal proceedings. The principles, which apply to acquittal in other criminal cases, cannot apply to these cases. As far as the present case is concerned, in addition to three reasons, given by the High Court, we are of the view that the original appellant has not even explained how the leaves of the cheque enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay Kumar, Adv., Ms. Sheffali Chaudhary, Adv., Ms. Vipasha Singh, Adv., Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, Adv., Mr. V. Bishwanath Bhandarkar, Adv., Mr. Sarbendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. H.K. Naik, Adv., Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR ORDER DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Delay in filing substitution application is condoned. Application for substitution is allowed and abateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case set up by the complainant was that the original appellant had borrowed a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs from him and for repayment of that sum had issued a cheque on 18.11.2000 drawn on State Bank of Mysore. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Thereafter, legal notice (Ext.P4) was issued, which has been duly served upon the original appellant. According to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering the entire evidence, has delivered a well reasoned judgment upsetting the judgment of the Trial Court. The reasons which weighed with the High Court were that; (1) the original appellant did not step into the witness box to state that he had not signed the cheque; (2) that the opinion of the handwriting expert was only an opinion and not conclusive; (3) that the original appellant had fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant some suggestions were made that since the complainant was visiting the office of the original appellant, he had access to the same. The complainant had only admitted that he visited the office of the original appellant but he denied all the other suggestions. Thereafter, it was for the original appellant to prove his part of the case. The High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
