Sec.138& Sec.139 of N.I.Act - Issue of Cheque proved - Capacity to lent such huge amount not pleaded nor proved - Trial court dismissed complaint as the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt - High court went wrong and remanded the case - Apex court set aside the same -2015 S.C.-MSK LAW REPORTS 19



The  trial  court  correctly held
that the complainant had no source of income to lend a sum  of  Rs.14  lakhs
to the accused and he failed to prove  that  there  is  legally  recoverable
debt payable by the accused to him and that in discharge of  said  liability
he issued the cheque and accordingly acquitted the accused  for the  alleged
offence  under  Section  138  of  N.I.  Act.

 The source claimed  by


the complainant is  savings from his salary and  an  amount  of  Rs.5  lakhs
derived by him from sale of site No.45 belonging to  him.   

Neither  in  the
complaint nor in the chief-examination of  the  complainant,  there  is  any
averment with regard to the sale price of site No.45.   

The  concerned  sale
deed was also  not  produced.  Though  the  complainant  was  an  income-tax
assessee he had admitted in his evidence that he had not shown the  sale  of
site No.45 in his income-tax return. 

On the  contrary  the  complainant  has
admitted in his evidence that in the year 1997 he had  obtained  a  loan  of
Rs.1,49,205/- from L.I.C. 

It is pertinent to note that the alleged  loan  of
Rs.14 lakhs is claimed to have been  disbursed  in  the  year  1997  to  the
accused.  Further  the  complainant  did  not  produce  bank  statement   to
substantiate his claim.  

The trial court took into account the testimony  of
the wife of the complaint in another criminal  case  arising  under  Section
138  of  the  N.I.  Act  in  which  she  has   stated   that   the   present
appellant/accused  had  not  taken  any  loan  from  her  husband.    On   a
consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence  the trial court  came
to the conclusion that the complainant had no  source of income  to  lend  a
sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the accused and he  failed  to  prove  that  there  is
legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to him.-  2015 S.C. MSK LAW REPORTS 19 

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS