TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to pay a fine of ₹ 3000/-, in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and ₹ 4,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. The case of the Appellant/complainant is that the impugned cheques were drawn by the Respondent/accused in favour of one Gnanavel towards debt liability, who in turn endorsed those cheques in favour of the complainant. Thus, the complainant is the holder in due course of the impugned cheques. On the cheques being presented for encashment with his Bankers, those cheques were dishonoured on the ground that it exceeded arrangement. Statutory notice w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struments Act. It is submitted by him that the endorsement found on the reverse are mere signatures of the said Gnanavel and no details of endorsement are stated. The learned Counsel contended that since the requirement of Section 50 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not complied with, the Appellant/ complainant cannot be considered as a holder in due course and pointed out that the said Gnanavel had not been examined as a witness before the Trial Court despite the fact that the accused had disputed the very liability and privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent. 7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent drew the attention of this Court to the decisions rendered in the cases of Ashok Kumar v. K. Gunasekaran, Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no contract between my client and your client's concern by way of writing or by agreement though the cheques issued by my client have to be discounted by your client's concern. My client further states that when he is not having any subsisting debt or liability to your client's firm then there is no necessity for my client to give that cheque to discharge that alleged liability - My client further states that your client is not at all the holder in due course of the cheque for a valid consideration. 10. In spite of such reply of the Respondent as stated above, the complainant has not chosen to examine the payee namely Gnanavel to prove that consideration was passed to the payee at the time of transfer and it was given in li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
