9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant/respondent issued a notice, Ex.C10, to the appellant informing that three of his cheques, issued in favour of respondent/complainant dated 28.04.2001, 05.06.2001 and 19.07.2001, got dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds'. Despite this notice, the appellant did not discharge his liability of making payment against these cheques. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint in the Court under Section 138 of the Act. Before the learned trial Court, the complainant took the stand that these cheques were issued by the appellant in discharge of his liability towards the loan taken by him from the complainant. The cheques got dishonoured and the appellant failed to pay the cheque amount despite the notice under Section 138 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noured and despite issuance of notice under Section 138 of the Act, no amount was paid and, therefore, offence under Section 138 of the Act was established. 5. The appellant has impugned the legality of the order of the trial Court on the ground that the notice issued by the complainant was not a valid notice since the drawer of the cheque in this case was M/s.Shraff Coal Corporation whereas the notice was issued in the name of the appellant in his individual capacity and the appellant was also prosecuted by the respondent in his individual capacity and not as a proprietor of M/s.Shraff Coal Corporation. The other plea taken is that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the defence taken by appellant and convicted the appellant sole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged his liability towards the loan taken by him. He could not have paid any unaccounted money to the complainant nor he could have paid money to the complainant without a valid receipt/voucher. Failure on the part of the appellant to produce any books of accounts in the Court or any receipt of payment in discharge of liability of his loan amount, disproved the defence taken by the appellant. The complainant's case of dishonour of the cheques, receipt of the notice under Section 138 of the Act after dishonour and nonpayment of the amount, despite receipt of notice, was admitted by the appellant. In fact, complainant had nothing to prove beyond that. The trial Court, therefore, rightly convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
