Is this justice ?
Guest
(Querist) 15 July 2010
This query is : Resolved
A case of cheque bouncing worth Rs.one lakh is being fought. The petitioner says that the cheque was given under a friendly loan,loan was not returned, so cheque was presented and got bounced hence 138 is applicable.
The opponent advocate knowingly or unknowingly never raised the question that whether the petitioner is a money lender and possess a valid license of money lending,he never appealed to the court to get the age of writing checked of signature and date and amount etc.He never appealed that there is a ruling of Bombay High court that cases of Post dated cheques of loans do not fall in 138.
Ultimately petitioner won the case.
Now it is almost impossible that the judge did not know all these questions/appeals which should have been raised by the respondent's advocate but which were never raised.
My query --is this justice that judge does not interfere knowing that a case is being lost just because of mistakes of an advocate
Can't in the end judge himself raise/suggests the questions/appeals left by both the parties ?
And if he does not do that,is this justice?
M Ravinder Babu Advocate Parka
(Expert) 15 July 2010
helo,
can you please mail the details -name of parties-page no. print in which maggine it reported
ravinderbabumrb@yahoo.com
ravinderbabumrb@gmail
A V Vishal
(Expert) 15 July 2010
Friendly loans too attract 138, the citation given by you is misinterpreted. A friendly loan is also a legally enforcable debt.
B K Raghavendra Rao
(Expert) 16 July 2010
Judges judge the facts, documents, evidences placed before them. They cannot act like investigators. If the advocate has not represented the case for accused properly, the accused had many remedies one among them being removing him and hiring another competent one. Certainly, accused should suffer for the defaults of his lawyer as he has hired him.
