Q: Write about the citation of Indra Cidambaram( Mrs.) V. Quick Fotos: (2015) ?

Ans: 

Indra Cidambaram( Mrs.) V. Quick Fotos: (2015) ACD 812 : (2016) 1 NIJ 263: (2015) 2 MadWN(Cri) 75: 2015 LRC Online 935 (Mad) .
When the complainant failed to prove the passing of consideration and presumption rebutted by accused through various exhibits,  the acquittal of accused warrants no interference.
The honourable Madras High Court held the fact that no particulars were given pertaining to the date on which the amount was advanced, the date on which the cheque was given, the non-explanation of the details regarding notice sent by the accused in the complaint though the same was received by the complainant much earlier to the filing of the complaint and the fact that the relationship between the family of the complainant and the family of the respondent got strained even prior to the alleged issuance of cheque by the accused that the accused owed money to the chit conducted by the complainant as well as was paying the amount till March, 2011 and no document was obtained by the complainant while the amount was advanced would lead to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove passing of consideration and the accused also rebutted the presumption by those documents referred to above and even though the accused was not able to prove that the intimation about such cheque was given in the year 1996 and the evidence in that respect cannot be believed. Having regard to the finding given above, the honourable Madras High Court did not interfere with the findings of the trial Court of acquitting the accused.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: What is the significance of issuing account payee cheque?

Ans: While issuing the cheque, a drawer should draw two parallel lines on its left side and should write 'account only' in between them. By doing this, the cheque becomes an account payee cheque and the payment will be made only in the bank account of the payee. In case of any type of fraud, the payee can be traced. Having the above- mentioned precautions, a drawer can be avoided from fraud to a great extent.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia on 22 September, 2000 ?

Ans:  Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia on 22 September, 2000. The Kerela High Court held that Section 138 of negotiable instrument act is attracted only if there is legally recoverable debt and it can not be said that the time barred debt is legally enforceable debt. For the reasons stated above, the Kerela High Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.  The Kerela High Court sees no infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court. This appeal is groundless and is liable to be dismissed.
Read more

Q: How would section 208, 209 and 210 of IPC be implemented in dishonour of cheque ?

Ans: A and B collude together and A issues the cheque for X Amount, which gets dishonored.  B files the complaint under S.138, and without proving the liability gets the benefit of presumption under S.139, now both A and B enact the drama of compounding under S.147 of NI Act, matter closed, but in principle A has violated IPC S.208 and S.210 and B has violated IPC S.209. So, if rightly B is asked to prove the entitlement to become the holder, before presumption can be granted to him, surely he would fail and lawfully both A and B can be prosecuted under IPC S.208, S.209 and S.210 if required.
Read more