Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)Abdul Samad vs Satya Narayan Mahawar on 23 April, 1990
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the law in Abdul Samad's case [1993] 76 Comp Cas 241, does not apply to the facts of the present case. He submitted that the cheque in question was presented to the bank on several occasions. On March 19, 1990, the account of the petitioner showed a balance of Rs. 87,091.33 which was evidently insufficient to make the payment of the cheque for Rs. 1,16,643. On April 17, 1990, the petitioner closed the account and there was thus no question of payment of the cheque from the account of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, therefore, as a matter of fact, the cheque had not been honoured for want of necessary arrangement in the account and it was of no consequence that eventually the bank returned the cheque on the ground that the payment thereof had been stopped by the drawer. In this connection, reference was made to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint as well as the statement of Parmodh Kumar, Clerk, Bank of India, examined as PW-3 in the preliminary evidence. In Paragraph 4 of the complaint, it was stated that the cheque was presented several times but the same was returned unpaid. In Paragraph 5, inter alia, it was stated that the complainant enquired about the said dishonour from the concerned bank and it was found that on May 21, 1990, there was no arrangement in the Bank of India to meet the amount of the cheque and as such the payment was stopped by the accused intentionally.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1