Ch of 3rd person-138 nia in discharge of legal liability

What was the date of the cheque? What was the date on which the cheque bounced? On what date the Complainant filed the case in court? On what date did the accused prayed to the court for action under Sec:311 Cr. P.C.? When the accused disowned the cheque, did the Complainant have anything to tell or pray for to the court? Was the Complainant only watching things without any response? What was the reason the court rejected his application for action under Sec:311? If the contention of the accused disowning the cheque gets accepted the case will fall flat. Hence the court should either reject the contention of the accused and proceed or order measures to prove the authorship of the cheque. If the court does not take necessary action in the matter as to establish who is the author of the cheque, the Complainant should approach the higher court to order the lower court. Otherwise time will pass and a good case will get lost. The rejection of the application of the accused is actually helping the accused. After 8 years I do not know whether the authorship of the cheque can be ascertained. Has the Complainant's lawyer been sleeping?

Try to add value to the discussion, with your each post.

@Shri Ashok Kumar: I do not know why you have made that statement. Anyway I give the following. The LCI members may decide whether I am adding value or not. The court has not given its final judgment, nor adjourned to give judgment. In your first post you had stated that the cheque was drawn by the father of the accused. But your later narrations show that it was only your surmise. No one has stated so before the court. So if it is a fact, it is not known to the court and if, at all, it was mentioned in the court, it was only hearsay. As far as the court is concerned the accused has claimed that it was not his cheque. But the court would not accept it unless he gives evidence to prove his claim. In other words the burden of proof is on the accused. That is the reason, the accused, on his own, making repeated requests to the court to prove his claim. He proposed referring the matter to the Bank. But the court did not accept it. Now he is proposing referring the cheque to a handwriting expert. It is not known now whether the court will accept it or not. But, as I mentioned, a difference in handwriting would not necessarily mean that the cheque did not belong to the accused. Hence, lest the court may accept this proposal, you must oppose it. We do not know whether the accused has more in his kit. Ultimately if his contention that the cheque did not belong to him was not accepted by the court, he could no more claim that the cheque was drawn by his father or any by other person known to him. I do not think that he will have any more points to fight in the court. The case will go in your favour. By the way, I have answered your very first post. Handwriting would not prove the contentions of the accused either way. It must be rejected outright.

Dr Ramani

U pl check the Blank Space and let me know if that Statement appears suo moto with u also (It is still appearing in my Space for Posting)

Yes every time I try to post a reply the sentence appears. I erase it every time. I asked that question only because your post contained nothing else besides that sentence.