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

Rajinder Prasad Versus State OF Delhi & Anr.

2016 (11) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Offense Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that:- By proving his 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. The respondent no.2/complainant has also placed on record the promissory note signed by the petitioner. On the other hand, it is an admitted case of the petitioner himself that the cheque in question bore his signatures. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a that he had given the cheque in question to one Sukhbir Singh. - 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 defence that the cheque was not issued by him. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. After goi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred as Cr.P.C.) against judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) was upheld. Vide judgment dated 26.02.2016 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 16.03.2016, he was sentence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 lacs. The respondent no.2 advanced the loan of ₹ 1.5 lacs to the petitioners on 25.12.2008. The petitioner signed a promissory note on 25.12.2008. To repay the loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.463757 dated 26.12.2010 for a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks account closed . The respondent no.2 sent a legal notice dated 28.02.2011 to the petitioner. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ling aggrieved of the orders passed by the Courts below, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 4. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties have been 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 any legally enforceable debt for which the cheque in question was issued. It was further argued that the case of the responde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r contra, it was argued that the complainant had duly established his case beyond reasonable doubt that loan of ₹ 1.5 lacs 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 dishonoured when presented for encashment. It was further argued that the petitioner had failed to make the payment of cheq .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

plainant. He had taken the plea that the cheque in question along with five other cheques were issued by him to one Sukhbir Singh against loan of ₹ 50,000/- taken from him and the said amount was already paid to Sukbir Singh. 9. By proving his 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. The respondent no.2/complainant has also placed on record th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

given opportunity to lead his defence evidence. Despite availing the said opportunity, the petitioner had not produced any defence evidence to establish his plea that he had given the cheque in question to one Sukhbir Singh. 10. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay v. Laxman and Anr. (2013) 3 SCC 86 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 defence that the cheque was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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