S. 489-F—Criminal and civil proceedings—Maintainability—Maxim that ‘a man should not be vexed twice’—Applicability—Trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that criminal proceedings were not maintainable as civil suit regarding the disputed amount of cheque had already been decreed in favour of the complainant—Findings of the Trial Court regarding non-maintainability of the criminal proceedings in presence of civil proceedings about the same transaction were against the law, because civil and criminal proceedings were two different remedies provided by law having different consequence; therefore, both remedies, being not overlapping, could be simultaneously availed by the complainant having a right under the law—In case different rights to commence proceedings of civil and criminal nature had sprung up with different results, those (remedies) could be availed differently, and the maxim that ‘a man should not be vexed twice’ would not be applicable—Decree passed in the civil suit filed by the complainant was shown to have been set aside by the appellate court—Bank account in question was in the name of the Company, and the Partnership Deed provided that the account would be operated with joint signatures of two partners, including the accused; whereas, the dishonoured cheque handed over by the accused to the complainant did not bear the signatures of both partners, and nothing was available on record that the Company had authorized the accused to issue the cheque in his personal capacity—Controversy as to payment of loan (on account of which the cheque had been issued) was allegedly between the complainant and the accused and not between the Company and the complainant—Grievance of the complainant was, therefore, against the accused and not against the Company—Memorandum governing the right of the Company, although, provided that any cheque issued by the accused/Director would be acceptable by the Company, but neither said document had been exhibited during the trial, nor had the same been put to the accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C; said document, therefore, the same had no evidentiary value—Complainant had failed to prove the account , in respect of which the cheque had been issued, to be the personal account of the accused—None of the two partners of the Company had been examined-
Comments