Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Rambhool Singh Versus State & Anr.

2016 (10) TMI 515 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Dishonoring of cheques - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that:- Section 139 of the N.I. Act provides for raising of presumption to the effect that the holder of the cheque has received it in discharge of liability. - The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay v. Laxman and Anr. (2013 (5) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has observed that once the cheque has been issued and the signatures thereon has been admitted by the accused, then it is not available to the accused to take the de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

revisional jurisdiction the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court as well as by the appellate Court. - In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. Application, if any, is also disposed of. - CRL.REV.P. 818/2015 - Dated:- 5-9-2016 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) was upheld. Vide judgment dated 26.02.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and vide order on sentence dated 25.03.2015, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay the compensation of ₹ 4 lakhs to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m of ₹ 3,45,000/- and promised to return the loan amount till 21.05.2005. To repay the loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.739923 dated 01.02.2006 for a sum of ₹ 3,45,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks funds insufficient . The respondent no.2 sent a legal notice dated 19.06.2006 to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not make the payment. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. The complainant/responden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the parties were heard. I have gone through the arguments advanced and the material available on record. 5. Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent no.2 had not proved her case beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt. There were material discrepancies in the testimony of complainant witness. There was no proof that any liability accrued against the petitioner. The petitioner took the loan of ₹ 1,00,000/- from the husba .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te of execution of pronote. It was further argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since 24.08.2015. 6. Per contra, it was argued that the complainant had duly established her case beyond reasonable doubt that loan of ₹ 3,45,000/- was taken by the petitioner from the respondent no.2/complainant and to discharge his liability, he had issued the cheque in question. It was further argued that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the same was dishonoure .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

notice as Ex.CW1/8. 8. By proving her case by way of leading the oral as well as documentary evidence, the respondent no.2/complainant had duly proved all the essential ingredients of his case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. On the other hand, it is an admitted case of the petitioner himself that the cheque in question bore his signatures. He also admitted the issuance of cheque. 9. The plea of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable liabi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version