Cheque bouncing

Please get the facts right , the earlier case was not complete and during the trial court case use section 319.

There is vicarious liability of issuer of cheque but same could have been contradicted in cross.

 

If the judgement is out you have to go in revision no other course left.

case is concluded and judgement is pronounced therafter court with suo moto power framed the charge against director no.2 and trial conducted and punished him for being personally liable for act.

Cheque bounce is a technical law and its procedure is short and unlimited powert given to JMFC OR MM courts.

 

Still there are ample orrportunities if the case is properply contested at lower court for any accused of cheque bounce case to come out of it.

 

Since law can not provide for all possibilites and power of defense is immense.

 

In the given case since the judgement is given  so go for revision, do your home work properly and the accused can come out free even at revison / appeal stage.

This court seems to be quite aggressive !! and it seems it has made a big blunder !! Cheque bounce is an offense under s.138 of NI Act. It is an offense between two private parties and not an offense against state. Rather the cause of action comes only after non payment on expiry of 15 days of notice. So under S.138 atleast no court has any suo moto right. If the sou moto charges are framed under different section like 420 etc, then it is ok but it cannot be under NI Act. if the order is passed you havee no option but to go for rev. To me it appears a different matter: This gentleman director has issued the cheque from his account in order to clear the liability of the company, so he has been convicted of in individual capacity not as a director of the company in the same trial