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?
" Recently a lower court found someone guilty and fined Rs. 20000/- for some crime,now that person approached Delhi High Court (Court of Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra) and appealed for reducing that fine.Justice Dhingra was amazed that that person was fined only Rs.20000/- for a crime for which he would have been penalized heavily.
Justice Dhingra asked that person why he should not be penalized more than Rs.20000/- for a heavy crime he had committed."
I mean to say ---why not this type of attitude is shown by all the judges, after all their duty is to cater justice,why not they themselves use their knowledge also while listening to a case ?
Is not it an example of pro-activeness of judges--recommended so many times by sociologists ?
