A Truthseeker
30 August 2009 at 09:17
Gandhiji spake "India lives in village". the majority of us do not know about our legal rights. when our person or property is violated we yearn that the wrong doer would be punished but most of the crime do not even come to light. the Govt. has taken measures to check the health of general public by establishing rural hospitals. we have now legal services authrity at every subdivisional court.can people be served like doctors?
A Truthseeker
29 August 2009 at 23:26
From small offence all serious ones emerge. first man insults then intimidation starts then attempts on person result. in this way all smaller causes give rise to bigger crimes. if all offences are made non-bailable but noncognizable and the upper limit is made life imprisonment and the lower as OR FINE and all offences are triable by experienced judges with at least 10 years experience can we expect better criminal justice and law and order situation?
A Truthseeker
29 August 2009 at 17:25
the statement of accused is to be split into components. suppose an accused in police custody makes a statement that after theft he buried the booty near a tree. the booty was recovered . but the part of the statement "that after theft i buried the booty" is inadmissible. only the recovery would be admissible.
ad. creaminall
29 August 2009 at 14:32
on behalf of Accused >>> a faraud held with a bank by some persons. when bank knew about the fraud they called the accused and told him about the fraudulant transation held in his accunt. the Accused then applied for anticipatery bail. the application for ABA filed on14/1/97. notice sent to bank. bank refused to accept the notice stating that they have lodged a complait before CBI. notice issued to CBI too. CBI refused to accept the notice stating that no such complaint filed before them by the said banker. the ourt thereafter send the notice through registrar to the banker ad to the CBI. but both were remain absent and the ABA of Accused was sanctioned by the Session court. on 2/5/97 the banker has lodged a FIR about the said fraud and the person who has taken bail was also joined as a co accused. while the truth is that the person has informed the banker and CBI about the said fraud in january 97 and the banker does not took any steps at that time and sudenly after about a four months i.e. in may 97 the file a Fir and joined the said person as accused?
what remedy is available for the Accused. plz. provide citation if any available in favour of accused.
Thanks in advance
ad. creaminall
29 August 2009 at 14:16
on behalf of Accused no.- 2 >>> complaint filed u/s. 420,467,465, 468, 471,34 IPC acgainst accused.Order passed u/s. 156(3)on 19/12/97 but FIR registered on 12/1/99. reason for delay was given that due to investigation in other I&R matter of other court. the complainant who has filed te complainant is shown as witness in FIR and the complainant is different person. main Accused i.e. Accused no. - 1 who really has commited the offence showed as suspect only. niether he has arrested nor shown as wanted. charged framed twice first in the year 2000 and second in the year 2008.
experts plz. tell what remedy is available for accused no. 2 ??????????
plz. provide any citation/case law is available in favour of Accused no. - 2.
Thanks in avance.
Thyagarajan
29 August 2009 at 09:11
My query on the subject yesterday was what would be expected of the respondant when a preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge in whoose court a false ducument was supposed to have been filed by the respondant in a proceeding. Magistrate comes in picture only when the application is forwared by the judge. The judge is not framing any charges for the offence committed under IPC but only sees whether there is any basis to show the document is false.
The answers I got was only partly.
Adinath@Avinash Patil
29 August 2009 at 06:00
Can accused file anticipatary bail in offence relating atrocity Act.
Thyagarajan
28 August 2009 at 20:58
when on an application by which a court is made to know that a false document is filed by the respondant during the proceedings in the court, if the judge decided to conduct an enquiry before forwarding the complaint to a magistrate, will any counter filed by the respondant should proove the document is not false?
Soma
28 August 2009 at 20:18
a woman has been severly beaten by her brother's wife and then hospitalised. Can she file a criminal case under section 323/326/506 IPC if there is already prior pending PWDVA case against the Victim (here who is beaten)filed by her brother's wife?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Negotiable Instrument act
In K.K. Ahuja Vs V.K. Vora & Anr. Hon’ble Supreme Court had given decision on July 06, 2009 under Section 138 of N.I. act. The judgment is reproducing below. Hon’ble court has defined vicarious liability under section 141 sub sections (1) & (2).In the para 6 of the judgment, as per section 141 (2) signatory of the cheque is liable though he may not be Director of the company. He may be an employee of the company performing his duties. The decision is quite elaborative. In my opinion the hon’ble court has failed to clarify on one aspect viz. what will be the position of an employee if after issuance of cheque, the Managing Director or Senior Authority instructs the bank to “Stop Payment” the cheque.
The basic question is whether employee is liable under section 138 on cheque signed by him on behalf
of the company, when the said cheque is instructed for “Stop Payment” by the Managing Director or the Senior Authority of the company after issuance.
If the answer is in affirmative, whether this is not against the natural justice to an employee. Because
for the act of senior authority a junior employee is liable & the senior employee is exempted under the section 138 of N.I.act. If junior employee is liable along with Managing Director whether this is not a channel through which another case like “ satyam” can be created. Whether industrial growth of India will not hamper if employee do not sign the cheque ?
I will be happy if expert opinion is given on the above point. The said judgment is as follows ;
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1130-31 OF 2003
K.K. Ahuja ... Appellant
Vs.
V.K. Vora & Anr. ... Respondents
JUDGMENT
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
The question as to who can be said to be persons "in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the business of the company" referred to in section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave by a complainant.
2. The appellant filed two complaints (Crl. Comp.No.58/2001 and59/2001) in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against M/s.Motorol Speciality Oils Ltd. (`the Company' for short) and eight others under section 138 of the Act. The first complaint was in regard to dishonour of five cheques (each for Rs.5,00,000/-, all dated 28.2.2001). The second complaint was in regard to dishonour of three cheques (for Rs.3 lakhs, 3 lakhs and 10 lakhs dated 31.10.2000, 30.11.2000 and 20.12.2000 respectively). The cheques were alleged to have been drawn in favour of the appellant's proprietary concern (M/s Delhi Paints & Oil Traders) by the company represented by its Chairman. In the said complaints, the appellant had impleaded nine persons as accused, namely, the company (A-1), its Chairman (A-2), four Directors (A-3 to A-6) as also its Vice-President (Finance), General Manager and Deputy General Manager (A-7, A-8 and A-9 respectively). In the complaint the complainant averred that "at the time of the commission of offence, accused 2 to 9 were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of day to day business of accused No.1" and that therefore they were deemed to be guilty of offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Act and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant also alleged that respondents 2 to 9 were directly and actively involved in the financial dealings of the company and that the accused had failed to make payment of the cheques which were dishonoured. In the pre-summoning evidence, the appellant reiterated that accused 2 to 9 were responsible for the conduct of d