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

MIR DARA SHEKO
Rani Amuda K – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Arif – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. A.S. Zinu, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1: None Appeared
For the State:Mr. S.C. Mishra, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Mir Dara Sheko, J.—The instant criminal appeal has been directed by the appellant/complainant, who will be called on hereinafter as the appellant, against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.03.2016 delivered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class 2nd Court, Port Blair in C.R. case No 106 of 2015 under section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 holding the respondent/accused, who will be referred to hereafter as the respondent, is not guilty for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms A.S. Zinu criticized the judgement of acquittal and submitted to turn the fate of the case into the judgement of conviction for reasons as mentioned below:-

(i) Criticizing the judgment, she submitted that holding defect in service of notice before filing of the complaint case, in the manner it was held by the learned Magistrate, was misconception of fact and law and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

(ii) Learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the bond of undertaking before taking the loan amount from the appellant and taking return of one of four cheques after satisfying amount of the said c

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