9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). 2. According to the appellant, the court below was not justified in acquitting the accused, finding that the case set up by the appellant/complainant that the accused had borrowed an amount of ₹ 50,000/-, and in repayment of that Ext.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of that liability, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity, as mentioned in the complaint, had never been incurred. Therefore, there was no liability, as mentioned in the complaint, so far as the accused is concerned. In such circumstances, the court below was justified in acquitting the accused, the counsel submits. 4. In the light of the decision in I.C.D.S.Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer, (2002 ACJ 249 (S.C.): 2002(3) CCC 411 (S.C.): 2002(3) CCC 566 (S.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.2.1998. Thus, the case set up in Ext.P5 reply notice was that until that date, the complainant did not have locus standi to present the cheque. 6. Thus the evidence on record reveals that Ext.P1 cheque has been issued by the accused and that it bounced for want of sufficient fund and that the accused did have transaction with the complainant and there was some liability on the part of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by one to another, it gives an authority on the person, to whom it is issued, to fill it up at the appropriate stage with the necessary entries regarding the liability and to present it to the bank. In the light of this, the accused cannot be absolved of the liability. He is, therefore, liable for conviction, reversing the impugned judgment. 3. Accordingly, I convict the accused and sentence h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
