2019 (2) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....C.T.No.101/2017 2. The case of the respondent before the lower Court is that the petitioner/accused borrowed the amount of Rs. 7,88,000/- from the respondent for personal requirement with promise to pay the same within some days. When the respondent has demanded the said money, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No.104156 for the said amount i.e. Rs. 7,88,000/- to the respondent thereafter the respondent deposited the aforesaid cheque in the Bank, but same was dishonored due to insufficient balance. Thereafter, respondent gave a notice to the petitioner/accused upon which he did not pay the cheque amount then the respondent/complainant filed an application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Subsequently, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rayer resulted of the miscarriage of justice. It is not disputed that the respondent/complainant is retired government servant and he is getting pension which it self shows that no such transaction has been taken place, and he has mis-utilized the cheque of the applicant/petitioner. It is apparent that income tax return of the respondent/complainant are important document and hence the same ought to have been summoned in court and proper opportunities should be awarded to the petitioner/applicant to his defence. 5. He further submits that the respondent/complainant is aged 65 years whereas the petitioner/applicant is having 35 years of age. In such circumstances friendly relationship between both of them appears to be doubtful and, it pr....