Important Judgment on NI Act

Irrespective of all the opinions and discussion that outstanding against the cheque was real or not , it is very defficult to win a case of NI 138. You can just give harrassment to other party but you are also harrassed.

The stories you read about conviction is from those accused who do not take the matter seriously at initial stages and wake up when it is too late.

I AGREE WITH ABOVE VIEW, IF THE CHQ WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH LEGALLY ENFORCEBLE LIABILITY, COMMERCIAL NATURE OF TRANSACTION . IT IS ABSOLUTLY DIFFICULT TO PROVE AND PENAL AND CONVICTION IN VERY VERY DIFFICULT IN THE EYE OF LAW.

Judges are appointed to see the innocent is not punished.?

But if a intelegent is performing as a post office bearer then god will save in next birth perhaps?

Dear Mr P Janardhan Reddy ji;

You are right to make aware of the new developments taking place in drafting the bill ; many may not know.

good for enlighting the people. About the Bill NIAct 2002.

Why it has gone in the hands of Private Illegal financers is most worrying some ?  

What is the responsibility left with elected leaders? 

you must catch hold the collar of the PARLAMENTARIEnCE  and quetion them in a appropriet forums like their personal blogs,mail,opendiscussions,petition cell and media. Then only things will happen.

And whatever you draft or include there will always be other side. Most important questions is money sharks for getting heavy interest accept cheques. Original money is collected and for remaining heavy interest they file cases. So it becomes defficult to prove legal liability , whatever law you make.

Mr. Janardan Reddy You are rightly expressed Now.

I agree with your opinion, the suggested route is quite lengthy.

The accused are many times protected in wrong manners.

( why minsiters are protected once charged sheeted) pls respond?

Citing-

 What  happened to  "Kapil Thankur " Snurl - chappal at Kalmadi ; while taken to court, ;  [ shud he be called as Mr Respected Honble Ex Minister]  ?

 som forum shud take care for  giving protection to right people. Just not for all.

is it possible for all readers to know about the bill  NIAct 138

latest amended getting passed in 2002, 

WHY NOT ?, PLEASE OPEN THE BELOW ATTACHMENT

AND ALSO GO TO THE ARTICLE ON AMENDMENTS OF NI ACT 2002

Thanks Mr P janardhana Reddy ji.

We provide extensive help mainly to honest accused. NI138/139 is quite paiful for the accused if not handled properly. This is a kind of financial TADA and honest accused although has to pass through the trial once process is initiated still can save himself if properly defended. All the stages including reply to the notice is very important and can twist the case. Contact us with full details for help at advocate.dma@gmail.com for further assistance

SIR,

ACCOUNT CLOSED & CHEQUE RETURNED. NOW 138 or 420 WHICH ONE IS APPLICABLE ?

Account closed none of both will be applicable as rule.=complainant need not be over confident , it will be next to impossible to win any NI 138 case if contested aggressively by accused  from day one since the case has to be proved beyond doubt at many points that is  a) there was legal liability b) cheque was actually given by the accused from his account c)cheque was presented during stipulated time to the bank d) cheque was actually returned due to insufficient funds e) legal notice was given f) such legal notice was received g) thereafter proper pleadings are made and documents attached at first instance while filing the case.

Even if the presumptions are there in NI ACT the accused has legal right to rebut them which is more simple , sure and easy., and complainant  make mistakes on one or more  points/ steps., in over 

only  chaque  retuern is aplicable  because in 420 he has many cause in favour of himself.