Govind Ram Chanani VS Latha

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

K.RAMANNA
Govind Ram Chanani – Appellant
Versus
Latha – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mohd. Usman Shaikh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A.N. Radhakrishna, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

K. Ramanna, J.—All these appeals filed by the appellant Govind Ram Chanani stated to be the authorised representative of M/s. Alloy Steel Emporium, Mathikere, Bangalore under Section 378(4). Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the 18th Additional CMM and 20th ASCJ. Bangalore in C.C. Nos. 29538/99, 29138/99, 29139/99, 28960/99, 29540/99, 29137/99, 28961/99 and 29539/99 allowing I.A. filed by the respondents/accused ‘in the respective cases and consequently acquitted the respondents.

2. The case of the appellant is that appellant Govind Ram Chanani described himself as a proprietor, M/s. Alloy Steel Emporium issued legal notice to respondents calling upon them to make good the cheque amount issued by them in favour of M/s. Alloy Steel Emporium but dishonoured by their banker for insufficient funds. The respondents did not comply with the demand of notice. Therefore, appellant filed complaints against respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court below, after taking cognizance, secured the presence of respondents and recorded their plea. Since the respondents pleaded not guilty the matter was posted for ev