When facts regarding the dishonour of a cheque are complex and seriously disputed, the high court cannot quash prosecution in a cryptic order, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Sesame Chemicals vs State of Meghalaya. The payee company alleged that the cheque it received bounced as the drawer firm had stopped payment by the bank. The drawer firm contended that the goods supplied by the other firm was substandard, and the cheque was signed at gun point. Both parties filed criminal complaints against each other, under the Negotiable Instruments Act and criminal laws. The Gauhati High Court quashed the trial regarding the bounced cheque. On appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the truth or otherwise of the allegations could be established only by evidence at the trial. The high court should not have cancelled the prosecution at the instance of the drawer of the cheque, who abused the process of the court.
Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/protection-for-sick-units-from-creditors-114110200712_1.html
Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/protection-for-sick-units-from-creditors-114110200712_1.html
Comments
Post a Comment