ACCOUNT CLOSED ... N.I.Act

Dear Hemant Ji,

I have filled a case under 138 for the dishouour of the cheque of amount of 60,000 against a travel agent resideds in Delhi. I have filled the case in Chandigarh court, as I am from Chandigarh, however , one of the evidence hearing, judge have ruled out the case stating itz out of  his jurisdiction, stating that the case should be filled at the accused  residence state. I like to clear that the cheque I deposited in the account have my address of Chandigarh. Can u please help me with this. and incase there is any ruling in favour of me, please provide that. Thanx in advance.

Regards

Hemant Abbot

Adv.Abbot,

I have not dealt with  INTER-State matters (involving 2 different states).

In INTRA-State matters (involving both the parties of the same state), any one litigants jurisdiction is aceptable.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

Agrawal ji theory on paper and on practice is defferent , if case coult not be proved u/s 138 of NI the other case u/s 420 will be slap on the face of complainant.

If you deffer which you will than pl give details of any exact case.

Adv.Shashikumar,   for exact cases on  N.I.Act and IPC-420 please scout around on the Internet or in the Law Library.  You are sure to find few of them.

1.  N.I.Act parameters are independent of the IPC.  There is no bar or restrictions in filing two different cases under N.I.Act and IPC.  Neither the complainant is at an disadvantage for filing u/s 420-IPC.

2.  Even if N.I.Act case is decided in favour of accused or dismissed in favour of accused. EVEN THEN there is no reason that IPC-420 cannot continue.  The Trial court shall not dismiss the complaint u/s 420 IPC,  EVEN IF ACCUSED IS  ACQUITED OR COMPLAINT U/S 138 IS DISMISSED.

3.  IT is an art & experience on part of the Advocate as to how to prepare & present both the cases and not be biased only in favour of N.I.Act  vis-a-vis  IPC.  Depending on various documentary evidences that may be researched & generated, one can surely fix the Accused under IPC-420,  EVEN if the accused is left out in N.I.Act.

4.   MY perception is that if a Complainant's Advocate cannot prove the case under N.I.Act,  (which is really a very simple and non-complicated Act)  THEN THE SAID ADVOCATE SHOULD NOT TAKE UP MATTERS OF N.I.ACT.

PLEASE RE-READ  & re-read  & try to introspect on the last para of my original post.  (reproduced again)

AS a standard routine, A complaint (case) should ALSO & ALWAYS be filed u/s 420 (IPC) against the Accused, in matters of 138 (N.I.Act).  It serves GOOD its purposes and a non-compoundable criminal perception of the case is taken by the Magistrates court, literally assuring conviction AND / OR recovery of the cheque amount along with out-of-court interest settlement..

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

To cut the story short pl give details of any actual case.

Adv.Shashikumar,  

To cut the STORY short  & to avoid spoon-feeding  &  SINCE YOU ARE ADVOCATE FOR DEFENCE,   for exact cases on  N.I.Act and IPC-420 please scout around on the Internet or in the Law Library.  You are sure to find few of them.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

keep smiling and dish out information with no relevance.

Can accused can also file 420 case against money lender who lies in court regarding date of delivery of cheque and ourstanding amount?

All the above discussions is bases on presumption of guilt which is possible only when the accused to not contest the cases properly at trial stage.

1) In cheque cases accused can also file case for extorsion and cheating .

2) the higher court citations have come because the accused was not able to demolish the story in lower court due to careless ness and not taking proper legal aid.

Please go through the following opinion of the APEX COURT in a cheque case.--

22. The courts below, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded on the basis that
Section 139 raises a presumption in regard to existence of a debt also. The
courts below, in our opinion, committed a serious error in proceeding on the
basis that for proving the defence the accused is required to step into the
witness box and unless he does so he would not be discharging his burden.
Such an approach on the part of the courts, we feel, is not correct.
23. An accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him
under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on
the basis of the materials already brought on records. An accused has a
constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of an
accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different.