Sec.138 N.I.Act - Power of attorney holder - scope & consideration of his evidence= a power of attorney holder is not a total substitute for his principal. He may depose about the acts which he has done and the facts which are to his knowledge. However, he cannot depose for the principal in support of the facts which are to the personal knowledge of principal alone. In such an instance the principal alone has to be examined. Now, in the instant case, the complaint was filed by the complainant represented by his SPA and complaint was signed by the complainant. Both the complainant and his SPA gave their sworn statements. The trial Court in its docket order dated 02.02.2005 permitted SPA to proceed with the case on behalf of complainant. Then, Ex.P1 would show that complainant authorised his SPA holder to prosecute the complaint and also to make statements on oath before any Court. Thus, PW1 authorised to give evidence also on behalf of complainant. The evidence of PW1 would show that he is none other than the son of complainants brother and he is having personal knowledge regarding business transactions with accused. He deposed that he sent cement bags on different occasions to the accused and he deposited the cheques issued by the accused in bank. Thus, when the evidence of PW1 is perused, besides being SPA, he is having personal knowledge on the facts concerning to this case. Accused has not brought on record any facts which are said to be in the exclusive knowledge of the complainant to draw an adverse inference for his non-examination. Therefore, the trial Courts observation in this regard cannot be approved.-2015 A.P.(2015) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.138 N.I.Act - Power of attorney holder - scope & consideration of his evidence=
a power of attorney holder is not a total
substitute for his principal. He may depose about the acts which he has done
and the facts which are to his knowledge. However, he cannot depose for the
principal in support of the facts which are to the personal knowledge of
principal alone. In such an instance the principal alone has to be examined.
Now, in the instant case, the complaint was filed by the complainant
represented by his SPA and complaint was signed by the complainant. Both  
the complainant and his SPA gave their sworn statements.  The trial Court in
its docket order dated 02.02.2005 permitted SPA to proceed with the case on
behalf of complainant. Then, Ex.P1 would show that complainant authorised
his SPA holder to prosecute the complaint and also to make statements on 
oath before any Court. Thus, PW1 authorised to give evidence also on behalf
of complainant. The evidence of PW1 would show that he is none other than
the son of complainants brother and he is having personal knowledge
regarding business transactions with accused. He deposed that he sent cement 
bags on different occasions to the accused and he deposited the cheques
issued by the accused in bank. Thus, when the evidence of PW1 is perused, 
besides being SPA, he is having personal knowledge on the facts concerning
to this case. Accused has not brought on record any facts which are said to be
in the exclusive knowledge of the complainant to draw an adverse inference
for his non-examination. Therefore, the trial Courts observation in this
regard cannot be approved.-2015 A.P.(2015) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more