9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that admittedly the accused/ respondent No.1 issued the cheque without the name of the payee, which the complainant/ appellant (payee) himself filled up and presented in bank for encashment. The evidence shows that the cheque amount was payable in terms of a written contingent agreement, copy of which is, of course, not exhibited, in the event of performance of the function by the artists through Progoti Enterprise, Mumbai, which enterprise was not even impleaded as accused/ respondent or its representative examined by either of the parties in the case. The complainant has not event established that he was the authorized signatory of the said enterprise to receive the cheque on its behalf and that the accused/ respondent No.1, being t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kia, on 01.08.2006, alleging interalia, that he was engaged by accused Dr. Hiren Gogoi for a musical show at Dibrugarh. Accordingly, he had agreed for the said work and made all arrangements for organizing the show. As per the terms of the said agreement, towards discharge of liability of making part payment of the works the accused issued a State Bank of India Account Payee Cheque bearing No.216867 dated 25.04.2006 in his name for an amount of ₹ 1,15,000/-. While the complainant presented the cheque on 11.05.2006 in his account No.01190013311 for collection through U.B.I., Tinsukia Branch, the Bank returned the cheque without honouring with an endorsement showing reasons of Payment stopped by the drawer and insufficient of fund i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of money to the complainant? 2) Whether the accused issued any cheque to the complainant to discharge his lawful liability or debt? 3) Whether the accused is liable for dishonour of cheque? 4) Whether the accused committed any offence under N.I. Act? 5) Whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation from the accused? 7. After threadbare analysis of evidence adduced by both sides, the Learned Trial Court held the accused/ respondent No.1 not guilty of the offence and accordingly acquitted him by the impugned judgment and order. 8. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by both sides and perused record including the impugned judgment and order. 9. It needs to be mentioned that Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11.05.2006, but the same was dishonoured with an endorsement, dated 17.05.2006, being payment stopped by the Drawer and Insufficient of fund vide Ext.2, the letter, dated 03.06.2006 of Union Bank of India, Tinsukia Branch and Ext.3, the Memo of State Bank of India, Dibrugarh Branch, dated 17.05.2006 respectively. Therefore, the complainant notified the accused to make payment of the said cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice vide Ext.4, the legal notice, dated 14.06.2006; Ext.4(2) the postal registration receipt thereof and Ext.4(3) the acknowledgment receipt. However, by Ext.5, the reply, dated 12.07.2006, the accused/ respondent No.1 denied any liability and instead asked the complainant/ appellant to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the accused/ respondent No.1, it appears that the complainant/ appellant introducing himself as the authorized signatory of Progoti Entertainment, entered into an agreement with the N.G.O namely Dogboloy to perform the said event for an amount of ₹ 5,51,000/- plus service @ 10.2% which came to ₹ 51,000/- by taking an advance amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- with conditions to pay the balance amount of ₹ 3,01,000/- on or before 10.04.2006 and in the event the show was cancelled by the artists, the amount received by him was to be refunded in full. 14. However, according to him on 24.04.2006, the complainant induced the Committee of Digboloy to pay an additional amount of ₹ 1,15,000/- subject to adjustment in final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f performance of the function by the artists through Progoti Enterprise, Mumbai, which enterprise was not even impleaded as accused/ respondent or its representative examined by either of the parties in the case. The complainant has not event established that he was the authorized signatory of the said enterprise to receive the cheque on its behalf and that the accused/ respondent No.1, being the President of the said unregistered N.G.O namely, Digboloy was personally liable under any debt or liability towards the complainant/ appellant on the date of issue of the cheque in question wherein he himself admittedly entered his name in different ink. Therefore, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances, that emerge on reappraisal of evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
