9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and sentence passed by the trial court and thereby acquitted the respondent/accused in all the 3 criminal cases of the charges leveled against him. 2. The case of the appellant is, that he filed private complaints against 1st respondent-accused alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. There was said to be transaction between the appellant and the 1st respondent. According to the complainant, for supply of green gram and other food-grains to the accused-respondent, the respondent had issued separate cheques to the complainant for different amounts, viz. ₹ 75000/-, ₹ 65838/- and 75000/-. All the cheques on presentation were dishonored and hence after issuance of notice recovery proceedings were initiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the address of the respondent at his Mill. The learned Sessions Judge opining that the demand notices ought to have been sent to the original address where the accused was residing and further that the complainant has not proved that there is legally enforceable debt based on the documentary evidence, and also noting that cheques were drawn during the year 1999 and presented during the year 2004 and as such formed an opinion that it is a time-barred transaction and therefore, the complaint is not sustainable. Accordingly, acquitted the accused. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2001 Crl. L.J. 1674 Ashok Yeshwant Badeve v. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar to contend th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent wherein decree in favour of the complainant was passed directing the respondent to make payment. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the respondent that there is no legally recoverable debt cannot be accepted.
7. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the trial Court is upheld while setting aside the order passed by the appellate Court. However, the order of imprisonment is set aside by directing the respondent to pay the fine amount as indicated in the order of the trial Court in each of the cases within three months from today failing which the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The order of the appellate court is modified while allowing the appeals in-part. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
