SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Kar) 17

A.B.MURGOD
ARUNA BAI – Appellant
Versus
SUKENDRA BABU – Respondent


Advocates:
H.Kantharaj, R.B.SADASHIVAPPA

A. B. MURGOD, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with section 401, Cr. P. C. by the complainant in P. C. R. No. 7 of 1992 on the file of the learned Munsiff and JMFC, Nelamangala taluk, Bangalore District, challenging the order dated 7-11-1992 by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the dismissal of the complaint by the learned Magistrate are as under: The revision petitioner had lent an amount of Rs. 22,000/- on 20-10-1991 to the respondent and the respondent had issued a cheque bearing No. 0877901 dated 30-11-1991 for Rs. 17,000/- towards the same. The revision petitioner presented it for encashment on 11-4-1992 and it came to be dishonoured on the same day with endorsement "funds insufficient". The revision petitioner issued a notice of demand on 23-4-1992 and the same came to be served on the respondent on 25-4-1992. As no payment was made within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of service of notice, revision petitioner filed a complaint alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent on 3-6-1992.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate recorded the statement











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top