Important Judgment on NI Act

Shri Ghanshyandasji I understand your anguish but also think of those accused sufferes who took five thosand loan for emergency and gave balnk cheque which the loan shark filled for one lack and filed criminal case.  ANY SOLUTION FOR SUCH VICTIMS.

ACCUSED IS INNOCENT( REALY AS  YOU FELT), THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT& THE EXPERTISE OF BAR&BENCH  Definitely WILL BAIL OUT from 138 NI ACT.

ACCUSED IS INNOCENT( REALLY AS  YOU FELT), THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT& THE EXPERTISE OF BAR&BENCH  Definitely WILL BAIL OUT from 138 NI ACT.

I strongly agree with Reddy sir. But Mr.WE FOR YOU. I think if appears from your profile that  you r speaclinig in 138, but why are you asking ANY SOLUTION FOR SUCH VICTIMS.

Can't you give?

don't have gots? or

dont' have brain?

or you have not legal person?

DEAR SIR FUTURE LAWYER,

I understand some time think will different but should not elborate the same to personal. Your personally trageting and personally taking the things rather than posting some good things. Try to behave as Law studnet, your become Advocate, let us stop blaming at our members in pesonally.

We are law rulesrs and makers not blamer, u r still styding the law. You will have understand more. I do agree in this site lots of members are gone up to --------- --------level.

Let us try to post reliable things.  

Basavaraj sir what you have advised it is right, but one fell SKJ-ADVOCATE balming me as "i don't anything about court procedure, and he knows everthing"., Sir I asked one question in 138 but he has not come back so far. I understand that he does not hae gots to post answer to my question.

Okay will you ready to give answer to my question, if your give answer to my question then I would stop and would post only good things and one more thng is that already i told and once again i say that form today onwards i will find mistaks whatever postings from WE FOR YOU & SKJ-ADVOCATE.

Finding mistaks in thier posting is my another task and I will imporve knwoldge also as well. 

Hey Mr.??????????

Let me know your collage name in Pune. So i would ready to come there and would try to solve ur problem. I said stop your unwanted postings here, Don;;t try to wast our members time and valable feedback.

I think your not a law stdunet. You don't know how to speak with others.

Let me know what is yoour question I will try my lvel best to provide reliable feedback

Hey Mr.??????????

Let me know your collage name in Pune. So i would ready to come there and would try to solve ur problem. I said stop your unwanted postings here, Don;;t try to wast our members time and valable feedback.

I think your not a law stdunet. You don't know how to speak with others.

Let me know what is yoour question I will try my lvel best to provide reliable feedback

PLS FIND ATTACHED ONE

PLS FIND 2ND ONE ATTACHED

2 no.chaque thept with propritor renuka's signature @ propritor seal on 16-7-2004,and stop payment on 17-4-2004. after on 3-8-2005 a chaque produced of Rs 3,00,000 and disowner. complanaint Bharat said money give cash on 23-7-2004 with statement of bank.chaque was blanck but filled by bharat.

witnes of bharat is partner sangita;s husband Rajender. Renuka went court-200crpc against bharat but decision against. now on trial. due evidence of comlanant just near.

After Registration till now partner is no working any type, no signature authorised in bank.

Please help me earliar. Thank You.

Natwar raj purohit. hasband of Renuka

2 no.chaque thept with propritor renuka's signature @ propritor seal on 16-7-2004,and stop payment on 17-4-2004. after on 3-8-2005 a chaque produced of Rs 3,00,000 and disowner. complanaint Bharat said money give cash on 23-7-2004 with statement of bank.chaque was blanck but filled by bharat.

witnes of bharat is partner sangita;s husband Rajender. Renuka went court-200crpc against bharat but decision against. now on trial. due evidence of comlanant just near.

After Registration till now partner is no working any type, no signature authorised in bank.

Please help me earliar. Thank You.

Natwar raj purohit. hasband of Renuka

Thanks Mr. Kiran Kumar for the very interesting Judgement.

Mr Kiran,

Thank You for this important information. and hope that you will continue share your thoutht and same.

Natwar Raj Purohit.

Accused allegedly issued the cheque/cheques.On 30.04.2010 examination U/S 251 Cr.P.C. done during which the accused pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. SC gave the landmark Judgment between Damodar S.Prabhu V. Sayed Baba Lal-H reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663 in the first week of May,2010. In  view of the Judgment the Accused (before examination of PW's) filed a petition and wanted to pay the money as he is not interested to face the ordeal of trial. Complainant of the case wants to punish the accused and denied any 'compounding' or for that matter ' the bounced cheque amount'. Trial Court rejected the plea of the accused stating that court cannot force the complainant to compound and receive the bounced cheque amount. Please give HC or SC rulings in this regard so that accused can pay the money.