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

2013 Supreme(All) 3074

SURENDRA VIKRARM SINGH RATHORE
Hriday Ram Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Surendra Vikrarm Singh Rathore, J. : We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Sultanpur and also the order dated 06.03.2006 whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and also the order of revisional court dated 18.09.2002 in Criminal Revision No.306 of 2006 whereby the revision was also dismissed.

3. Facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition in brief are that the complainant was dealing in the business of building material and he had supplied building material to the petitioner who was the Director Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Waste Land and Rural Development, Sultanpur. He issued two cheques of Rs.45,000/- each drawn at Canara Bank, Sultanpur. The said cheques were deposited by the petitioner in his account in Bank of Baroda, Civil Line Branch, Sultanpur but the same were returned with the report of insufficiency of fund. Thereafter notice dated 01.11.2004 was sent by registered post but no p





















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