Back
N. S. SHEKHAWAT
Suraj Trading Co. – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.S.Shekhawat, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Panipat, whereby, the respondent was ordered to be acquitted of the notice of accusation.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, appellant No.2/complainant M/s.Suraj Trading Company and appellant No.1/complainant were doing the business of sale of whole sale supply of Ghee, Maida, Sugar and other Kiryana articles. The respondent/accused had been making purchases of Ghee, Maida etc., from the appellants and was getting the bills thereof in the name of his Firm M/s.Faristha Foods. The respondent purchased Ghee, Maida etc., from the appellants during the period from November 2001 to 4th September 2002 worth Rs.73,180/-. A sum of Rs.6750/- was outstanding for the previous purchases. Consequently, the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.79,930/- to the appellant on account of purchase of various Kiryana articles and necessary bills were issued to him. Finally, the respondent/accused admittedly issued a cheque No.212876 dated 30.09.2002 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- in the name of appellant No.1. The cheque was presented by the appellant in the
Material alterations to a negotiable instrument render it void unless consented by the parties; a court should not overturn an acquittal unless findings are unreasonable or perverse.
A dishonored cheque primarily for insufficient funds establishes liability under Section 138, while secondary reasons like signature discrepancies are irrelevant unless intent to defraud is proven.
Appeal against acquittal – While hearing appeal against acquittal, power of reviewing evidence must be exercised with great care and caution – Where two views are possible, view in favour of accused ....
The absence of the company as a party precludes the vicarious liability of its directors under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding that the cheque was invalid due to material alteration, thus failing to establish charges under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The standard of proof required to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act is preponderance of probabilities, and the accused is not required to prove his case beyo....
Material alterations in a negotiable instrument void the instrument unless consented to by all parties involved.
The need for evidence to rebut the presumption under the NI Act and the inadmissibility of appreciating evidence at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 138 and Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in determining the validity of a complaint un....
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
