TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms conviction under Section 138, modifies sentence and directs payment to respondent.</h1> <h3>D.K. Chandel Versus M/s Wockhardt Ltd. And Anr.</h3> D.K. Chandel Versus M/s Wockhardt Ltd. And Anr. - TMI Issues:1. Setting aside of the order of the First Appellate Court and restoration of the Trial Court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Consideration of evidence by Trial Court and Additional Sessions Judge.3. Appeal against the conviction and acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge.4. Revision filed before the High Court challenging the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge.5. Interpretation of relevant authorizations and resolutions in the case.6. Modification of the sentence and fine amount imposed on the appellant.Setting aside of the First Appellate Court's Order:The Supreme Court addressed the appeal arising from the High Court's decision setting aside the First Appellate Court's order and restoring the Trial Court's judgment, which convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant had issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to the legal proceedings.Consideration of Evidence by Lower Courts:The Trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge had differing opinions on the evidence presented. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty based on the statement of account of the complainant, while the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant due to lack of sufficient proof regarding the debt and the authorization to file the complaint.Appeal and Revision Process:The appellant appealed the Trial Court's decision, leading to the Additional Sessions Judge's acquittal. Subsequently, the complainant filed a revision before the High Court, challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's decision. The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized the nature of the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the relevance of authorizations to file complaints.Interpretation of Authorizations and Resolutions:The High Court interpreted the company's resolution empowering the complainant to file complaints, emphasizing its relevance to the date of the cheque issuance. The Court differentiated between civil and criminal cases, highlighting the importance of the presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque.Modification of Sentence and Fine:The Supreme Court modified the sentence and fine imposed on the appellant, considering the issuance of the cheque in 1999 and other circumstances of the case. The Court decided to impose only the fine amount on the appellant, which had already been deposited with the Registry, directing its disbursement to the respondent without any additional costs.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the subsequent decisions made by the lower courts and the Supreme Court.
TaxTMI 