138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Deepak
(Querist) 24 September 2009
This query is : Resolved
Lost in Magistrate Court even after producing the following documents
1. Letter to the complainant asking for giving back old cheques and giving part of principle amount
2. Complainant took the principle amount but never acknowledge the same.
3. Complainant gave two dates as to deposit of the cheques one of which is impossible because he cannot remain present in two different places at one time and the other date is impossible because the cheque cannot come with in a day in a bank.riven
n.k.sarin
(Expert) 24 September 2009
Mr.Deepak your query is not clear.What do you want to know?riven
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 24 September 2009
Plz. come specifically so that due answer may be given as per its requirement.riven
PJANARDHANA REDDY
(Expert) 25 September 2009
MR DEEPAK MEANS TO SAY--
HE LOST THE CASE AS ACCUSED IN NI ACT 138 EVEN HE PRODUCE THE DOCS EVIDENCES---
1. Letter to the complainant asking for giving back old cheques and giving part of principle amount.
HE TRIED TO PROVE THAT THE DEBT IS NO MORE LEGALLY ENFORCEBLE
2. Complainant took the principle amount but never acknowledge the same.
DEEPAK HAVE U PAID BY CASH/ CHEQUE? IF IT IS CHQ NO ACK REQUIRE..IF CASH A RECEIPT OR AT LEAST A WITNESS.
3. Complainant gave two dates as to deposit of the cheques one of which is impossible because he cannot remain present in two different places at one time and the other date is impossible because the cheque cannot come with in a day in a bank.
THE THIRD POINT HE WANTS TO EXPLAIN THAT THE CHQS PRESENTED IN TWO DEFERENT PLACES ON SAME DATE.
DEEPAK CHQ CAN BE DEPOSIT BY ANY THIRD PARTY EVEN WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF A/C HOLDER.
THIS ARGUMENT REQUIRE SOME SORT OF CLARIFICATION .
NOW DAYS ALL MAGISTRATE IN TRAIL COURT WANTS TO DISPOSE THE CASES OF NI ACT WITH IN 6 MONTHS, EVEN THEY FIXED MONTHLY TARGETS BY CMJ/HC AS FAST TRACK.
THE ACT SAYS THE PRESUMPTION CLASUE SEC 138 &142IT SELF TO TAKE ACTION AND COGNZENS ETC.,
BUT STRONG OBJECTIONS AND PROPER PLEADINGS OF UR ADVOCATE SOME TIME HELPS TO COME OUT,BUT 90% CASES MM AWARDING PUNISHMENTS IN TRAILCOURTS ON THE BASIS OF SECTIONS.
ANY DONT WORRY THE IS NOT VERY SERIOUS OFFENCE MORE OVER IT IS BAILABLE BY MM ON SAME DAY INSTANTLY. U CAN APPEAL IN SESSION WITH ALL ERRORS U RELAY AND CAN COME OUT EASILY.
EVEN STILL U R APPEAL NOT ALLOWED THEN GO TO HC ,I HOPE U WILL GET SOME RELIEF.
BETTER ALWAYS ENGAGE THE ADVOCATE WHO IS SPECIALISED IN THAT FIELD ONLY, HE KNOWS BETTER THE PULS OF PLEADINGS AND COURT IN EVERY STAGE.
BUT ACT MAIN IDEA OF AMMND AS CRIMINAL LIABILITY---
The main object of the section 138 of the said act is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments.NOT PUNISH VICTIMS LIKE U. BYE ALL THE BEST
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate
(Expert) 25 September 2009
file a complaint before the court against the office incharge and subordinate for the lost of the instrument.
then magistrate will file f.i.r. against them.
where ever the actual doc. has been misplased and the court will satisfy (as in yr case )then secondery evidence has the ful power.
and i m also agree with the view of mr. reddy.
Sachin Bhatia
(Expert) 25 September 2009
Let Mr. Deepak to clarify the Query.
Bhumik Dave
(Expert) 26 September 2009
Clarify it YAAR.
