Cheque bounce case -- Maintainability of complaint – Mother of the Applicant-complainant appeared as his general attorney after due permission from the Court on acceptance of her application to permit her to file complaint and pursue the same as attorney -- Maintainability of the complaint is well-proved on the record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Proprietorship firm -- Complaint was filed by Prop. of Firm through G.P.A. -- Application for additional witness -- During the pendency of the proceedings, an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed to the effect that proprietor of firm was inadvertently not examined during the evidence of complainant – Held, filing of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but has been filed to fill up the lacuna in this case -- If application is allowed and the complainant is allowed to fill up the lacuna, then it will cause prejudice to the case of the accused – Application rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Knowledge -- Complainant himself has not appeared in the witness box and his attorney appeared -- Ld. trial Court held that power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath on behalf of the complainant if he had witnessed the transaction or had knowledge regarding the transaction between the complainant and the accused -- Attorney himself admitted in his cross-examination that “It is correct that I have no personal knowledge about the present case” -- No date, month or year of the transaction had been mentioned by the complainant -- No document on record to show the transaction between the parties -- Accused has been rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court -- Judgment passed by the learned trial Court is correct as per evidence and law and does not require any interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Hypothecated vehicle sold by Bank -- Ld. J.M.I.C., while acquitting the accused held that GPA were neither filed in original nor were duly registered, as such were not admissible in evidence – Court also held that when after the sanction of alleged loan, the Bank seized the vehicle and sold the same and adjusted the sale proceeds towards the amount repayable by the accused, then the accused/borrower was not guilty under an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act for dishonour of post dated cheques – Held, findings given by learned JMIC, are correct, as per law and cannot be held as illegal or perverse.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.01.2015