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

2007 Supreme(Ker) 809

R.BASANT
Anil Ravindran – Appellant
Versus
A. Rama Pai – Respondent


ORDER

R. Basant, J.

1. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and is shown to be dated 31/12/1999. Notice of demand though duly received was not replied to by the accused. Accused, in the course of the trial, has taken up a contention that the date 31/12/1999 is an alteration / forgery and that when the cheque was handed over, it bore the date 31/12/1997. The last digit 7 has now been altered to 9. This is the crucial contention raised. According to the petitioner, in 1997 when there was a transaction of Rs.30,000/-, two cheques one for Rs.30,000/- and another for Rs.50,000/- were obtained from the petitioner by the complainant who is a money lender and he had kept the same with him. In respect of the cheque for Rs.30,000/-, Annexure B notice was issued. Annexure C cheque was issued along with the original of Annexure D reply notice by the petitioner himself directly to the advocate.

2. The complainant denied these allegations. Earlier transactions were not disputed. But it was contended that the cheque evidences a liability to repay an amount of Rs.50,000/- and it always bore the date








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