Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refusal to summon bank officials and financial records under Section 311 read with Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the pending prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 warranted interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The request to summon bank officials and account records was made to establish that sufficient funds were available in the relevant bank account and to build a defence against the cheque dishonour complaint. The dishonour, however, had already been recorded on the basis of the return memos and the complainant's evidence as being due to payment stopped by the drawer. That reason was treated as an admitted position between the parties, and the complainant also stated that the case was not one of insufficiency of funds or exceeding arrangement. In that situation, further evidence from the bank was unnecessary for proving a fact already accepted and the dismissal of the application did not cause any infirmity.
Conclusion: The refusal to summon the bank officials and records was upheld and interference was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the reason for dishonour of cheques is admitted as stop payment and insufficiency of funds is not in issue, an application to summon bank witnesses to prove available funds is unnecessary and may be refused.