TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in whole or in part in favour of the payee. The Ld. Magistrate has misplaced the burden of proof. The complaint case has been lodged within the statutory period laid down in Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As such, the decision arrived at, acquitting the appellant is not legally tenable. The impugned judgment and order is therefore, set aside. The case is remitted to the 8th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for summoning the complainant and the accused respondent and after giving them an opportunity of hearing pass a fresh judgment in accordance with law on the evidence already on record, preferably within three months from receipt of this order. Appeal allowed. - C. R. A. 398 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent dated 2.5.2001 passed in case no. C/518 of 1997 and the evidence on record. In brief, the facts of the case is that the complainant/appellant Pradip Kumar Basu is the Executive Director of M/s. Roll sprint Packaging Limited, a group of Companies which includes M/s. City Link Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. For service rendered by the complainant from 15.11.1996 to 12.5.1997, the group Company, respondent no. 1 herein, issued two cheques through accused no. 2/respondent no. 2 of the amount of ₹ 55,000/- each, bearing cheque No. 041435 dated 20.6.1997 and cheque 041436 dated 20.07.1997 in favour of the appellant/complainant, drawn on State Bank of Indore, Brabourne Road Branch, Calcutta as part payment of dues. The cheques were presented wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Magistrate observed that there was no dispute regarding issuance of cheques by the Rajesh Somani, the Director of M/s. City Link Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. but complainant could not prove the liability of the accused company and person towards him by not being able to establish the relation between the complainant's company M/s. Rollsprint Ltd. and M/s. City Link Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. This appeal against acquittal has been filed on the grounds inter alia, that the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and has illegally and perversely held that the company has failed to prove the existing liability of the accused company and the connection between M/s. Roll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uitting the appellant is not legally tenable. The impugned judgment and order is therefore, set aside. The case is remitted to the 8th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for summoning the complainant and the accused respondent and after giving them an opportunity of hearing pass a fresh judgment in accordance with law on the evidence already on record, preferably within three months from receipt of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. All pending connected applications, if any, are consequently disposed of. Let the LCR along with copy of this judgment be sent down to the 8th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for information and compliance. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
