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

1993 Supreme(Ori) 14

S.C.MOHAPATRA
JANARDHAN MOHAPATRA – Appellant
Versus
SAROJ KUMAR CHOUDHURY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ADITYA PATNAIK, D.K.MAHANTA, D.N.Mahapatra, P.PALIT, P.V.Balakrishna Rao, P.V.Ramdas

S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.


( 1 ) ACCUSED is petitioner in this application invoking the power under Section 462 Criminal Procedure Code to quash cognizance taken against him.

( 2 ) ACCUSED issued a cheque in favour of the complainant on 24-8-1991 which complainant deposited for collection in his account. Bank to which it was sent for collection did not honour the cheque on the ground that there is no sufficient fund available in the account of the accused. This fact was intimated to complainant oh 28-8-1991. Complainant thereafter called upon the accused to pay the amount which was received by accused on 20/09/1991. No payment having been made by the accused, complaint was filed in February, 1991 alleging that accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Trial Court having taken cognizance of the offence and having directed issue of process against the accused, this application has been filed to quash the cognizance.

( 3 ) MR. P. Palit, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Sections 138 and 142 of the Act, submitted that the period of limitation having been prescribed in the Act itself for filing o
















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