9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess dealings with him and during the course of business dealings, he had given him an account payee cheque of ₹ 3,70,000/- dated 15.05.2007 drawn on State Bank of Indore Branch purported to be signed by S.K. Saraf as proprietor of M/s Vinayak Herbal. The petitioner, on being summoned by the trial Court, produced a copy of the bank statement to prima facie show that he was neither a si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of this Court, the petitioner filed application before the trial Court for recall of cognizance order and this application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 20.03.2010. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this petition. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also of Mr. Amit Lahoti appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heque in question from the bank account of accused's brother. I do not find any merit in this contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant. The fact of the matter is that the cheque in question on the basis of which complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by the respondent against the petitioner was issued by one Shri S.K. Saraf purporting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
