Recently, the Punjab and Haryana HC ruled that Section 142 of the NI Act creates a statutory immunity on the court not taking cognizance of an offense under Section 138 except on a complaint which has written to meet the requirements of a formal complaint.
The site of Justice Aman Chaudhary is dealing with an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Magistrate of the first class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, who observed that the charge was filed under Section 138 of the Communications Act, 1881 was dismissed.
In this case, 47322 quintals and 80 kilograms of paddy were supplied for custom milling to the respondents, as per the agreement entered into between the parties.
The respondent issued a check for Rs.50 lakhs, drawn on State Bank of India Jagadhari, which came to be canceled vide memo dated the same day with the words “no enough funds”. The returned check was also issued as a negative vide memo of the date with the words “insufficient funds”.
However, due to non-payment of the amount, the appellant filed the complaint, whereupon the respondents were sued by the trial Court for trial.
Factors to consider before site are:
Whether the order passed by the First Class Judicial Magistrate requires interference or not?
The criterion is that the plaintiff has not proved the elements of Section 138 of the Act and it is difficult for this Court to uphold the amendments made in the complaint, especially in the absence of evidence. force to confirm it. covered by the elements of doubt, however, sufficient evidence has been presented by the respondents to disprove the plaintiff’s claim, which the Trial Court found very favorable.
Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join
According to the High Court, the trial Court’s charge was rightly held to be unsustainable, as it was older and had been filed on 3.11.2010, i.e., the 14th day, much of section 138 of the Act, was not fulfilled. .
Based on the above, the jury dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. v. M/s Hanuman Rice Mill and another
Site: Justice Aman Chaudhary
Case No.: CRA-AS-338-2022
Counsel for the appellant: Pawan Girdhar and Manav Bajaj
Counsel for the respondent: Parminder Singh
Get Instant Law Updates on Mobile- Download Law Trend APP Now
