Back
2000(6) Supreme 441
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah, JJ.
R. Rajagopal -Appellant
versus
S.S. Venkat -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 170-172 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3142-3144 of 1999)
Decided on 11-2-2000
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The only ground on which the complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been quashed by the High Court is that the Company (the partnership firm in this case) on whose behalf the cheque was issued was not made an accused in the complaint. Respondent who is the partner has been made an accused.
3. The aforesaid stand of the High Court cannot now be sustained in view of the pronouncement of law on the subject in Anil Handa v. India Acrylic Limited1.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent then submitted that there are other contentions which Respondent has to raise as against the prosecution. We are not disposed to deal with all those contentions, for, it is open to the Respondent to raise such contentions in the trial Court.
5. In the result we set aside the impugned judgment and direct the trial Court to proceed with the trial.
6. The appeals are disposed of.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
****************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
R. Rajagopal v. S.S. Venkat, 2000(6) Supreme 441 : 2000 (5) JT 503 : 2000 (2) All. Crl. L.R. 763 : 2000 (7) JT 388 : 2000 ISJ (Banking) 554 : 2000 (4) Crimes 63
00024
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
