Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Mahadei Nath – Appellant
Versus
Ritu Ranjan Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
1. Instant revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2010 dated 1st December, 2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 14th December, 2009 directed by the learned J.M.F.C., Panposh, while disposing the complaint in 1.C.C. Case No.275 of 2007 for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act on the grounds inter alia that such decision suffers from infirmity and hence, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
2. The opposite party as complainant filed the complaint in 1.C.C. Case No.275 of 2007 for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Panposh at Rourkela by the petitioner alleging therein that he had given a friendly loan of Rs.6 lac to the latter for developing his business in the name and style of M/s Laxmi Traders dealing with Cement Agency etc. and when the same was not refunded in time, instead, a cheque was issued and on its presentation before the Bank failed to be honoured for insufficient fund, legal n
The proprietor of a sole proprietorship holding liability for a dishonored cheque under Section 138 NI Act does not require the business entity to be arrayed as an accused.
In dishonored cheque cases under the N.I. Act, the presumption of debt arises upon dishonor, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption with credible evidence.
A cheque issued as security raises presumption of debt under Section 138 of the NI Act, which can be rebutted by proving no liability exists; concurrent civil proceedings do not preclude criminal act....
The drawer of a cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act bears the burden to rebut the presumption of liability; failure to do so can result in conviction for cheque dishonour.
The prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act by an unregistered firm is valid, and the authority of a partner to file a complaint is upheld, emphasizing the importance of compensatory justice.
Only the drawer of a cheque is entitled to notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, not signatories facing indictment under Section 141.
A corporate entity and its directors are vicariously liable for dishonored cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act, with the presumption of liability shifting to the accused to prove otherwise.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
