presented by the complainant, were returned on the ground of "payment stopped by the Drawer". The complainant issued a statutory notice dated ... returned the products back to the complainant and had issued stop payment instructions to his bank.
4. However, the complainant has initiated a prosecution
disbelieved by the Courts
below, because, the accused would have issued “Stop Payment”
instructions to his bank, had he been abducted and all the three
disbelieved by the Courts
below, because, the accused would have issued “Stop Payment”
instructions to his bank, had he been abducted
disbelieved by the Courts
below, because, the accused would have issued “Stop Payment”
instructions to his bank, had he been abducted and all the three
cheque dated
12.05.2008 was dishonoured. The accused would have atleast issued stop
payment instructions to his bank, which was not done. Even
disbelieved by the Courts
below, because, the accused would have issued “Stop Payment”
instructions to his bank, had he been abducted and the impugned
cheque
disbelieved by the Courts
below, because, the accused would have issued “Stop Payment”
instructions to his bank, had he been abducted and all the three
disbelieved by the Courts
below, because, the accused would have issued “Stop Payment”
instructions to his bank, had he been abducted and the impugned
cheque
disbelieved by the Courts
below, because, the accused would have issued “Stop Payment”
instructions to his bank, had he been abducted and the impugned
cheque
disbelieved by the Courts
below, because, the accused would have issued “Stop Payment”
instructions to his bank, had he been abducted
