Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881  - Section 138

Dishonour of cheques - Respondent no.1 made the payment in the name of proprietary Firm for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- - On deposit, Bank returned cheque "unpaid" with a Memorandum "funds are insufficient" - Complaint - The trial Court and the Appellate Court convicted the respondent no.1 to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant - High Court set aside orders - Appellant could not produce any evidence to establish that he was the sole proprietor of the proprietary concern - Appeal - It is evident that the appellant/complainant could not produce any document to show that he was the proprietor in spite of the fact that the issue had been agitated by the respondent no.1/accused at every stage - List of witnesses the complainant had mentioned the name of his banker as a witness - Banker was not examined - Proprietary firm has been the payee and the appellant cannot claim to be the payee of the cheque, nor can he be the holder unless he establishes that the cheques had been issued to him or in his favour or that he is the sole proprietor of the concern - Appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to connect himself with the said firm - Appeal dismissed.

Topic(s)-Dishonour of cheques

Important Decision(s)- Complainant not produce any evidence that he was proprietor of firm - Cheque name of firm - Acquittal.