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

ANAND BYRAREDDY
Rangaraj Urs – Appellant
Versus
J. T. Muniraju – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Anand Byrareddy, J.—This is a complainant’s appeal. The complainant had alleged that the respondent had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’, for brevity) The complainant was said to be a tenant under the respondent. It is stated that he had paid a security deposit under the lease agreement. This sum of Rs.2.50 lakh was said to have been refunded by the respondent after deducting Rs.8,000/-, by way of a cheque dated 22.2.2007. The cheque having been dishonoured on being presented for collection and when the respondent failed to make payment against a demand made in terms of Section 138 of the NI Act, the complaint came to be filed.

2. In the proceedings before the Magistrate, though the accused had entered appearance, the matter was not contested.

In that, the complainant was not cross-examined to test his evidence by way of his examination-in-chief, nor did the accused tender any evidence in spite of opportunity. The case of the complainant was therefore accepted by the court and the respondent was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2.45 lakh of which Rs.2.44 lakh was to





























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