VINOD VERMA (C E O) 26 August 2015

Criminal law

Honourable members, i have some queries, which personal and prompt attention.:

1. The Partner of the partnership firm in whose favour the Cheque was issued and got bounced, appointed Power of Attorney, to file the complaint.

2. POA holder is not an employee of the Partnership firm, neither on their pay rolls as theIncome Tx returns show no salary account in last 3 years, elevent to the date of cheque.

3. the stamp paper of Rs. 100.00 purchased is dated 27th Aug. 2009, there on the last para the mention is that P.O A has been executed on 25.08.,08, by thePartner of the Partnership firm.

4. The Magistrate was asked to lookinto the gross mistake, but has brushed aside the same saying its a typographical error;

5. The cheque bounced is one of the cheques from a compromised settlement; as such whether the cheques issued is comprmised settlement can be enforced under Sec. 138 N. I Act.

6. In the books of account of the complainant,neither there is any account in the name of accused, nor in the documents showing List of Debitors with the Income Tax retun, any citations to defend my self would be highly appreciated.

I am grateful to all in advance

vinod

Reply Follow

4 Replies

adv.raghavan (Advocate,9444674980) 26 August 2015

For query 1 & 2, i do not think much can be made out of this favg. accused,. 3,& 4, It hold some weightage, and it is valid ground during trial and also in later stage. 5, Cheque issued in terms of a compromise agreement, not to satisfy any debt or payment due, is not covered by section 138 of NI Act. (Lalit Kumar Sharma & Anr vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr dated 06.05.08 MANU/SC/2079/2008).

VINOD VERMA (C E O) 26 August 2015

thanks dear for ur prompt reply

BHRIGU DATTA 9475352677 (PRIVATE PRACTICE) 27 August 2015

you must exibit the date of purchase of stamp paper and execution of it before court with exebit mark if necessary call for vendor registar at the time of cross examination. it will go in your favour.

VINOD VERMA (C E O) 01 September 2015

the cross examinationof the CW1 was already over, the application u/s 311, pointing out the discrepency in the date of purchase of the stamped paper (27.08.2099 ) and execution as mentioned in the last paraspecial POA (28.08.2008) was brushed aside by thelearned JMIC as type error, citing the same has been got nororised on 29.08.2009.anothenew devlopment cropped up today; the certified copy of the SPOA, the date of 27.08.2009 is with overwriting on '8' ... the stamp paperis sold as ABC.. prop....DEF; where as the body of the SPOA its mentioned ABC....Partner.....DEF; will the Ld. JMIC, brush asie this as well as error or take theSPOA as defective and dismiss the case?????