9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners Nos. 2 3 are the partners of petitioner No. 1. As per the complaint the petitioners obtained a loan from the respondent No. 2 and in discharge of their liability issued three cheques bearing No. 225065 dated 25.4.2003 for Rs.78,833/-, cheque bearing No. 225066 dated 9.4.2003 for Rs.7,833/- and cheque bearing No. 225067dated 18.4.2003 for Rs.7,833/-, all drawn on Bank of India, Chitranjan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the cheques were issued without consideration. 3. The law in respect of applicability of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on account of dishonour of cheque for reasons 'payment stopped by drawer' has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/s. Medchal Chemicals Pharma P. Ltd. and Anr. reported as 2002 [1] JCC 15. It was held in the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of absence of liability, the accused has to show that there were sufficient funds but the burden to prove the same is with the accused which the accused has to discharge at the time of leading defense evidence. Referring to its earlier decision in Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi reported as (1998) 3 SCC 249, the Supreme Court made the following observations in para 19 of the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsufficiency or paucity of funds. If the accused shows that in his account there was sufficient funds to clear the amount of the cheque at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment at the drawer bank and that the stop payment notice had been issued because of other valid causes including that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presumption (sic) of cheque for enchasm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient funds for honouring the three cheques. However, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MMTC (Supra), this court cannot call for evidence to prove the certificate or to enquire as to whether there was any pre-existing debt or liability. 7. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no strength. I am, therefore, constrained to dismiss the same. The petition is dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
