Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2012 (11) TMI 1332 - HC - Indian Laws
Issues involved: Challenge to judgment and order of acquittal u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issue 1: Facts and Background The appellant advanced loans to the accused and received cheques which bounced due to insufficient funds, leading to the filing of complaints u/s 138 of the NI Act. Issue 2: Trial Proceedings Complainant and accused were examined, documents were presented, and the Trial Court acquitted the accused, prompting the filing of appeals. Issue 3: Contention of Appellant Appellant argued that the Trial Court erred in allowing respondents to file affidavits instead of chief examination, contrary to the law, and sought to set aside the acquittal orders. Issue 4: Respondents' Defense Respondents' counsel contended that the Trial Court followed correct procedure and there was no need to remit the matter back for further examination. Issue 5: Legal Provision Section 145 of the NI Act allows the complainant to give evidence by affidavit, but this provision does not extend to the accused. Issue 6: Precedent and Interpretation Citing a Supreme Court decision, it was highlighted that the legislative intent does not permit accused to give evidence on affidavit, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures. Judgment: The High Court held that the Trial Court erred in accepting affidavits from the accused instead of requiring them to enter the witness box. The acquittal orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the Trial Court for proper examination of the accused. The Court directed expedited disposal of the case within three months.
|