LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

udayvir   02 March 2015

suggestions needed 138 N.I.Act

Client convicted by lower court under section 138 ni act. according to the complainant the amount given by him was a month before the date of cheques, though the complainant was neither an income tax assessee nor he was able to prove his credit worthiness. though the accused was able to produce evidence in the form of passport that he was not in the country on the said date when the complainant claims to have given the loan amount and he had already filed a complaint with the bank that the cheques were stolen and as per instructions the cheques were stopped But the only mistake made by the accused was he entered in a compromise under the fear of being jailed and threats and was not able to fulfill the compromise and even told the judge that it was done under pressure but no application was moved for the same. The judge in the lower court convicted the fellow. 1).Here the notice for payment was never served to the accused as he was out of country. 2).At the time of banking the cheque the accused was not in the country and also according to the date of lending the said amount the accused was not in the country. Now what can be done to save the appellant in the session court?? Admission is not confession useful??


 3 Replies

ashok kumar (Social Worker)     24 March 2015

Surprisingly that message triggered for an interaction that was one of the bests I had on this site

I thank U for the SOUL that u put in each of the posts

ashok kumar (Social Worker)     24 March 2015

"entered in a compromise "

This is the Fatal Action of the  accused

recowerymoney (professional-recowerymoney@gmail.com)     12 September 2015

Even if compromise is there still there are inhereant mistakes in complaint which can beneefit in appeal.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register