Convicted wrongly under section 141 r/w 138 ni

You should post the final order.

There are many simple simple issue which should have been taken care of at trial stage which is sure win for any cheque bounce case.

Please post  the final judgment.

It was a sure win but all the points which you have stated should have been covered in cross examination.

Simple tricks of defense.
When a bucket is lost in a well what normally in a village they do to recover this bucket. They keep a multi angled hook catch just like an octopus . It has small small hooks at different angles. It is lowered in the well the bucket gets entangled in any one of the hooks.

Similarly for defense you must not stick to any one strategy however plausible and strong it may look. Study each and every word of the documents and find as many faults as possible. You will get numerous mistakes of the opponent.

Please do not put much reliance on citations of higher courts since many times even applicable but lower courts may disagree. So in over confidence due to dependence on citations other opportunities of defense are lost.

Dear All,

Thank you for your comments and advice. We knew it was a sure win.

Cross and Judgement will be posted shortly. The main points were as follows.

The honorable Judge agrees that I am the GPA holder of my father who is the proprietor of the firm A1. He says because of the GPA it is implied that I took care of my father's business and day to day affairs. Hence under section 141 I am liable vicariously.

He says that is it not possible that the complainant sent the money through a common friend on the date of execution of the promissory note. Hence he will not buy my argument of impurity and so on. In the cross the complainant deposed that all transactions happened in his house by me.

Hence it is legally enforceable debt and under section 141 i am vicariously liable,

Regards,

Kumar

There are very clear citations for POA , BUT again I want to empahsise on friends who work for defense not to stick to one defense. I get everday expereince where the lower courts says  I DONT AGREE WITH THE CITATION. So what you can do. If you have multiple defense action one or other will stick surely and definitely.

There are very clear citations for POA , BUT again I want to empahsise on friends who work for defense not to stick to one defense. I get everday expereince where the lower courts says  I DONT AGREE WITH THE CITATION. So what you can do. If you have multiple defense action one or other will stick surely and definitely.

Respected SIr,

My humble question is how proprietorships come under section 141. Is the surpreme court decision on Raghu Laxminarayana Vs. Fine tubes nor enough to support this. If the supreme court citation is categorised as irrelevant. How is the proprietorship a juristic and doesnot come under the ambit of the companies act.

We have also shown that the proprietor passed away on 30-12-2006 much before the cheque date then how is the firm even existent after the death of the proprietor. One more thing in the complaint the proprietor's name is even not mentioned. Hence any document signed (forged by the complainant) when the proprietorship firm is non existent is basically a forged one.

Secondly the capacity of the individual to pay is questioned in the cross and the reply was he has no record of Rs. 1 Lac but for Rs. 5 Lacs he borrowed from his sister who is an NRI. No further evidence was provided nor anything. the honorable judge days that Unaccounted money is only for money lenders and not for normal people and hence it is legally enforceable debt.

In the cross the complainant admitted that the signature on the acknowledgement sent to the firm's address doesnot contain the signature of me. But the firm has been non existent and I was never involved in any affairs after my father's death. Hence the correct address was not mentioned. I have also adduced eveidence in terms of the MRO family member's certificate for the same account number of the cheque for settlement of the amount in the bank dated 20-01-2007.

I understand that you win some and lose some but when the preponderance of probabilties have been clearly rebutted by the accused and the complainant has not proven by providing further evidence. Should I go directly to the high court for suspension of sentence and compensation or should i go to the sessions court?

Here is you miss the bus since relying on points which has less importance.

Issuer of cheque is also liable now argue.

For Kumar and all defense / accused of Ni 138.

1) Your whole approach is against the accused. No need to give the story of complaliant.

2) what you are trying to give in your argumens all that you should have taken in cross.

Now also do not remain in over confidence. Frame the revision by taking advice of a senior advocate since there is limited scope in revision.

ONCE YOU ADMIT CHEQUE AND ITS BOUNCE ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE VERY LIMITED. YOU SHIOULD HAVE TAKEN THE STAND THAT IS IS NOT YOUR CHEQUE , YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN , IT HAS NOT COME TO YOUR BANK, YOU HAVE NOT RECIEVED THE NOTICE AND SO ON AND ON.............

My argument for issuer of cheque is as follows.

1) The probability of non issuance of cheque on the date of the cheque and the non date scribing (hence blank cheque as security issued in the year 2005, cheque date is June 2008 and hence not plausible complaint) is there due to the circumstances mentioned before. This probability is high as it has been proven that the complainant is aware of the GPA and father's death. in cross he says that it is true that all these transactions are after my father's death.

2) In the cross he had said that his father filed another case under 138 hence all transactiosn were related to his father under the same firm and not his. Is it not that the probability is high that there were blank cheques and blank promissory notes which were executed by my father as the cheques and promissory notes were kept under his control.

3) My point is that when only a civil case lies on legal hiers he has cleverly put this case.

4) After 2-2-2007 (My mother was awarded the dealership and no cheque was issued after 2-2-2007 on the account of my father as it was closed by the bank on death of the proprietor)

5) as the date of the cheque is June 2008 on a closed account due to the bank itself the banker made a mistake by sending it back under insufficient funds. Now I understand your point clearly that we have to prove that the account was closed by the bank itself before and we have to get the bank manager on the stand as witness.

Thank you very much and please add more points to prove the same. 

You are not able to understand your mistakes that what most of accused or their advocates do and get convicted.

Winning NI 138 case is sure , simple and easy.

Thank you sir as I am at sea on the argument part. Anyway please send me your email Id I will send the full case details. Please also let us know your professional charges for legal consultation on this issue. Thank you in advance for your kind out of the box thinking. 

My email ID is there on my profile.

I am publicly discussing the issue so that others can also give inputs and get benefits.

On the face of it, it appears that learned trial court Judge either did not read or misread the situation. Secondly your statement is also very meek and not forceful despite valid grounds. Now the outcome of appeal depends on following points..

1. The Cross examination of complainant &

2. Conviction Order

The trial court judge must counter each and every defense argument put forward by you. Secondly please honestly tell how and when the cheque was received by the complainant. The law is very clear that even in case of POA the donor is responsible for the acts of agent, especially when it is properietorship firm neither the employee nor the POA holder be criminally held responsible for their acts done on behalf of the donor.