Great observation on 139 NI Act by Madras HC

Thanks Sir.

In some of the judgements i observed that even after sufficient circumstantial evidence based on 139 presumption conviction was given, like the one you quoted. Great pain to convicted to approch higher courts for appel.

sir,

in a  reccently  case  complaintant  state in court that  he give money against chaque and he paid by in him accout of saving account,  but he produce in court  a manager of bank and statement of current acoount with entry of the money.

when advocate of accused produce a application for statement of saving acount then trail court is refused.

WHAT ACTION WILL DO BY ACCUSED ADVOCATE?

PLEASE   ADVISE.

NATWAR RAJ PUROHIT

file a petition under 311 Cr.p.c R/W 145 of ni act under in separate Cr.M.P to consider the Current A/c statement as Evidence of Defence in the interest of justice.

Reddy sir what he says that complainant has produced entries in the current account for having given money while stated that money was given from savings account. I feel this is minor mistake.

The defense should not have allowed the depostion about current account since savings account is mentioned. Now it amounts to admission on the part of accused that money was given.

sir jsdn,

bank statement entry in current accout with self. Not any name.  accused already stop payment with stolen cheque report on seven day earliar and find crtificate from bank.

Persue the stolen cheque complaint than only it will be alibi otherwise not.

You should not have allowed the deposition about current account even if self cheque it amounts to admission on your part.

File revision for deletetion of this deposition than only hope otherwise in my opinion your defense has become weak.

Cheque bounce cases are most easy to win unless such types of mistakes are not done.

Incidentally the Honble SC has given stringent directions for issue and tenure of NBW in criminal cases on 9th Sep 2011. Pl send your email ID to me at my email ID - firmaction at gmail for the copy of the original judgment which I will forward with pleasure.

ponaka2008@gmail.com

sent the copy of the latest SC citation on  NBW  on above email.

Thank You very much,

Sir  reddy  & JSDN   for your  valuble advice.  I Do ing  work on it and contact  with you later.

see the judgment....

An important judgment by Madras HC on section 138 r/w Sec. 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Sub : Against presumption to Sec. 139 of N.I.Act

P.Gnanambigai vs S.Krishnasamy on 23 December, 2010

groy972@gmail.com

REDDY  AND  JSDN  SIR,

A  LOT OF THANKS.

AS PER YOUR ADVISE  ALSO,  THE  ACCUSED  ADVOCATE  FILED  REVISION  IN HIGH COURT.

DECISION IN FAVOUR  TO   ACCUSED IN FIRST  HEARING.