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>Acquittal upheld in bounced cheque case; accused successfully rebuts legal presumptions</h1> <h3>SOVERIGN CHITS (P) LIMITED Versus A.M. VENU S/O. A.K. MADHAVAN, STATE OF KERALA</h3> SOVERIGN CHITS (P) LIMITED Versus A.M. VENU S/O. A.K. MADHAVAN, STATE OF KERALA - TMI Issues:1. Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Allegation of default in payment of chitties' instalments.3. Issuance of a cheque returned with 'insufficient funds'.4. Examination of witnesses and submission of documents.5. Accused acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.6. Appeal challenging the trial court's judgment.7. Consideration of whether the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.8. Dispute over the issuance and custody of the cheque.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged default in payment of chitties' instalments by the accused and his wife, leading to the issuance of a cheque for part satisfaction of the due amount. However, the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds, prompting the complainant to file a complaint. The trial court, after examining witnesses and documents, found the accused not guilty under Section 138 and acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C., resulting in the filing of the current appeal.The appellant argued that the accused did commit the offence under Section 138, emphasizing the legal enforceability of the debt and compliance with formalities under the Act. The appellant contested the trial court's reliance on certain averments, claiming factual inaccuracies in the judgment. The central issue addressed was whether the accused indeed committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act, necessitating a detailed examination of the evidence and contentions presented.The court noted discrepancies regarding the issuance and custody of the cheque in question. The defence contended that the cheque was a blank one misused by the complainant, supported by notices and replies indicating the possession of blank cheques by the complainant before the alleged issuance of the cheque in dispute. The court highlighted the accused's specific mention of the cheque number in a reply, casting doubt on the complainant's case. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the accused's rebuttal of the presumptions under Sections 138 and 139 of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the trial court's judgment.In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the issues surrounding the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, scrutinizing the evidence, contentions, and legal aspects to uphold the trial court's decision and dismiss the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
