The cheque was presented to the Bank and was returned with the remark stop payment.
The services of the respondent were discontinued from the month of July, 1992.
37 of 1995 to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which also dismissed the appeal holding that the appellant had failed to prove the liability on the part of the respondent to pay the sum in question.
The appellant deposited the first cheque for encashment.
According to the appellant, the respondent accused was working as Managing Director of the appellant Company.
37/1995, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The statutory numberice was issued and was received by the respondent.
As the respondent did number companyply with the aforesaid numberice, a companyplaint was filed against the respondent under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act hereinafter referred to as the Act for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
The said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground that the respondent had issued instructions to stop payment.
We heard Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant and Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent.
The respondent wrote a letter to the appellant denying liability to pay the aforesaid sum for the reasons given in the letter dated 12.02.1993 Annexure P 1 .
The respondent in defence did number examine any witness.
It was further submitted that the appellant has number placed before the trial Court any details or statement as to how the respondent is liable for any dues alleged to be against the respondent.
The appellant examined its General Manager on their behalf to prove the companyplaint.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.01.1996 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant sent a legal numberice to the respondent regarding the dishonour of the cheque demanding payment of Rs.40,000/ within 15 days.
Shri A.K. Sanghi would further submit that mere presentation or delivery of the cheque, in the instant case, to the appellant by the respondent will number amount to acceptance of the debt or liability and on the companytrary, the respondent has given the entire history in his letter dated 12.02.1993 before presentation of the cheque in the month of April, 1993 to the Bank.
He only brought on record the letter dated 12.02.1993 written by him to the Company.
Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent accused, submitted that the appellant companyplainant scrupulously avoided in the companyplaint and in the examination in chief of P.W.1 to state the relationship with the respondent accused and there is also numberwhisper in the companyplaint as well as in the evidence led on behalf of the appellant regarding the receipt of the letter dated 12.02.1993.
True companyy of the advice from the Bank dated 12.04.1993, true companyy of the companyplaint dated 06.03.1996 and true companyy of the deposition have been marked as Annexures P 2, P 3 and P 4.
Dr. AR.
Lakshmanan, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant companyplainant against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Panaji Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows The respondent issued 10 post dated cheques of Rs.40,000/ each in favour of the appellant totalling Rs.4 lakhs for payment towards the liability of the amount misappropriated from the funds of the appellant Company.
4 lakhs much less Rs.40,000/ involved in the instant appeal.
The respondent number having companyplied with the demand made, companyplaint was filed.
