S. 489-F—Pre-arrest bail, grant of—F.I.R. had shown that cheque in question was issued from joint account of accused and co-accused to be encashed on specified date—Said cheque was signed by both of them, which had indicated that they were partners and possibility of possession of cheques joint ly signed by them with co-accused could not be ruled out—Payment was made to complainant despite letter of accused to the Bank that joint account be closed—Co-accused gave cheque to complainant who got it encashed before accused could inform Bank not to encash any cheque from the joint account —On the basis of said payment in favour of complainant, Investigating Officer, found that actual payment was made to complainant from the joint account and no wrongful loss was caused to him—Police record also indicated that accused had informed the Bank that partnership between accused and his co-accused ended and joint ly signed cheques be not honoured—Opinion of the police though was not binding, but it had a persuasive value in all criminal matters including bail before arrest—Cheque in question either was not issued by accused at all or it was issued joint ly by accused and co-accused—No harm came to co-accused from complainant side—If said cheque was issued dishonestly, then it was issued by both of them—Agreement to buy machinery mentioned in F.I.R., might have existed between co-accused and complainant, accused had no obligation or liability towards complainant which he failed to fulfil—Accused also did not owe any loan to complainant—Element of mala fides on part of complainant, could not be ruled out in circumstances–
Comments