9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is incorrect, illegal, perverse and capricious?" 3. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent issued the cheque-Ex. P.1, to the appellant towards repayment of loan amount borrowed by him from the appellant. The said cheque-Ex. P.1, came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also an admitted fact that in the cheque-Ex. P.1 the amount in figures is mentioned as Rs. 75,000/-, whereas in words it is written as 'Rupees Seventy Thousand Only'. The appellant got issued the demand notice through his advocate demanding the cheque amount as Rs. 75,000/- but inspite of service of said notice the respondent failed to pay the cheque amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to pay only Rs. 70,000/-, will not invalidate the notice issued by the appellant and the same will not be fatal to the case of the appellant-complainant. 5. In the instant case, the appellant-complainant has examined himself before the trial court and deposed to the effect that the respondent issued the cheque-Ex. P.1 towards legally recoverable debt and under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act a presumption is to be drawn in favour of the appellant-complainant that the respondent issued the said cheque towards repayment of any legally recoverable debt or other liability and it is for the respondent to rebut the said presumption, but in the instant case the respondent failed to enter witness box before the trial court and failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act, however in view of law laid down in case of Devi Tyres v. Nawab Jan cited supra it is clear there is valid compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act. The trial court on a technical ground has dismissed the complaint, without proper appreciation of the evidence and had failed to consider the basic intent behind enactment of the N.I. Act, wrongly interpreted the provision of law and if such an interpretation is allowed to continue, would defeat the basic intention behind enactment of the act, which should not be allowed. 7. For the foregoing reasons and the discussions this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. The respondent is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
