TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the above company and that the said cheque was bounced for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and that the accused issued the cheque with an intention to cheat the de facto complainant. 2. The main contention on which this petition is filed is to the effect that another complaint was filed by the complainant against the Petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC. No. 890 of 2007 and that when it is pending trial, the present case CC. No. 862 of 2009 for offence under Section 420 I.P.C. on the same allegations and on the same cause of action is not maintainable as the Petitioner cannot be tried twice on the same allegations in view of Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parate prosecutions for the offences punishable under Section 420, IPC and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The question of application of the principles of double jeopardy or rule estoppel does not come into play. The acquittal of the accused for the charge under Section 420, IPC does not operate as estoppel or res judicata for a finding of fact or law to be given in prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issue of fact and law to be tried and decided in prosecution under Section 420, IPC are not the same issue of fact and law to be tried in prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contentions advanced on behalf of the accused. 3. Further, the police are inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot operate as a bar for the present case as there is no conviction by any competent criminal Court basing on the same cause of action of issue of the cheque. 4. It is contended by the Petitioner's counsel placing reliance on Siddhartha Electronics v. Videocon International limited 2003 ALT (Cri) (1) 409 of this Court that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive must be in existence at the time when the inducement was made and since inception of the transaction. In this case, neither in the charge sheet nor in the statement of the authorized person of the 2nd Respondent given to the police under Section 161(3) Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
