9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y bill Ex.P6 whose authenticity has been denied by the accused- respondent because it does not either bear the signature of complainant or accused. On that basis, no presumption can be drawn against the accused. As per the provisions of Section 138(b) of the NI Act, it is the statutory duty of the complainant that after dishonour of cheque, information regarding dishonour/return of cheque should be furnished by giving a written notice to the accused within a period of thirty days. In the present matter, although a notice was issued by the complainant but it has been reflected from the impugned judgment that consideration amount of ₹ 50,000/- has been shown as due against the respondent- accused which is under suspicion and no evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /07/2015, accused had taken some bags of JP cement worth ₹ 50,000/-vide bill no.51 from the complainant- Firm and issued an account payee cheque no.096950, dated 02/08/2015 of Axis Bank, Branch Shivpuri in favour of Shri Ghanshyam Das Lakhera, the proprietor of firm/Shri Bagjedi Steel Traders and when the same was deposited for encashment by the complainant- Firm in his account holding bank i.e. Bank of India, Branch Shivpuri, the same was dishonoured due to ''insufficiency of fund'' in the account of respondent-accused and the same was returned back with an endorsement dated 29/08/2015 which was received by the complainant on 31/08/2015. Thereafter, a legal notice i.e. 07/09/2015 was issued to the respondent -accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reciated the evidence and came to a conclusion by passing the impugned order that no case is made out against the accused-respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is further submitted that the disputed cheque was issued in favour of complainant-Firm and this fact has also not been disputed by the respondent- accused but the learned JMFC has acquitted the accused only on the ground that the complainant- appellant did not submit any requisite document as well as registration certificate of the Firm. This finding recorded by the learned JMFC is wholly contrary as well as foreign to law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant that the procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt and from the record, it reveals that the cheque in question has been issued in the name of complainant- Firm and the only bill Ex.P6 whose authenticity has been denied by the accused- respondent because it does not either bear the signature of complainant or accused. On that basis, no presumption can be drawn against the accused. As per the provisions of Section 138(b) of the NI Act, it is the statutory duty of the complainant that after dishonour of cheque, information regarding dishonour/return of cheque should be furnished by giving a written notice to the accused within a period of thirty days. In the present matter, although a notice was issued by the complainant but it has been reflected from the impugned judgment that consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
