9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of one year and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereas on challenge to the said judgment, the Sessions Judge, Amritsar, accepted the appeal; set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them. 3. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 1, in order to discharge his financial liability, had issued a cheque Ex.CW2/3 for a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- on 30.01.2001, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Akali Market, Amritsar, in favour of the complainant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), which, on presentation, was returned uncashed with the remarks accounts closed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Court accepted the appeal; set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted the accused. Arguments heard. Records perused. 7. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 had issued a cheque in his favour in discharge of his legal liability against a loan of ₹ 1,00,000/-, taken by him from the petitioner on 30.09.2000. The cheque was issued by respondent No. 1 on 30.01.2001 for a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-. The petitioner presented the cheque to his banker on 30.07.2001, but he was informed by the banker that the cheque was dishonoured and it was sent back with the remarks account closed . The petitioner served a legal notice on 13.08.2001, but respondent No. 1 failed to make the payment despite the legal notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid circumstances of the case, no reliance, could be placed on the testimony of special power of attorney for the reasons that (i) he had not lent money to respondent No. 1 and he is not: aggrieved, if the money is not received back by him; (ii) He is not the person, who was entitled to get back the money; (iii) He was not entitled to legally claim any amount due under the cheque in question; (iv) Respondent No. 1 did not hand over any cheque to him and promised him that it would be honoured; (v) He is not the person, who had issued legal notice to respondent No. 1; (vi) He also did not present the cheque for encashment in the bank. He came into the picture after the complaint was filed and preliminary evidence was recorded; (vii) He i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without any permission of the Court. 10. The settled law is that the complaint may not essentially be required to be filed by the complainant himself, but complainant certainly has to step into the witness box to prove the allegations levelled against the accused. No doubt, the power of attorney could appear in the witness box, yet his testimony could be appreciated to a limited extent i.e. qua the facts within his personal knowledge. It has been observed by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case Anirudhan v. Phillip Jacob, 2006(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 382 : 2006 (4) Criminal Court Cases 130 (Ker) that power of attorney holder is competent to speak of facts within his exclusive personal knowledge. Similarly, it was observed by Hon'ble Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
