Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Suresh Thomas vs Mod Enterprises on 19 October, 2016

Simplex Enterprises Decided On ... vs . Mod on 27 September, 2019

10. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of both the parties. During arguments, Ld counsel for complainant argued that the daybook produced by the accused does not bear the signatures or receipt of the complainant and therefore, has no credence. Further, in none of the documents filed by the accused, it is shown that at any point of time, a sum of Rs. 7 lakh was taken as loan on interest by the accused from the complainant. The accused has also failed to show that the cheques were given as security as neither any notice for return of cheques had been given by the accused to the complainant nor any police complainant had been filed to report their misuse. It is alleged that the accused has been unsuccessful in rebutting the presumption against him and therefore, is liable to be convicted of the offence under Section 138 NI Act. He relied upon judgments titled as Canara Marbles & Granite Industries V. Simplex Enterprises decided on 30.11.2015; Suresh Thomas Vs. Mod Case No. : 3011/2017 Page No.6 of 25 Enterprises 2017 ACD 7 (DEL); Jaspal Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & another 2017 ACD 371 (DEL), and M/s Jane Norman Retail Pvt. Ltd and another V. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that from the cross examination of the complainant and his witnesses as well as by way of his own evidence, the accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption against him. It is contended that the complainant has neither mentioned the date nor the place where the alleged amount was given. Further, no bayana receipt or agreement had been filed on record by the complainant to support his contention. Even the address of the shop alleged to be offered for sale has not been mentioned by the complainant. It is argued that once the accused has denied selling of any shop to the complainant, the onus shifts upon the complainant to prove that any oral agreement for sale was executed between the parties, which the accused has failed to discharge. It is further alleged that from the documents filed by the accused, it stands proved that the cheques were given as security to the complainant for a loan taken from him, which loan has been repaid by the accused. It is averred that in a criminal case the complainant has to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts and since the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof upon him beyond all reasonable doubts, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of accused, succinctly laying down his defence in the case.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Nav Enterprises vs . Inderdeep Singh & Ors. on 21 October, 2020

d) It has been argued by the counsel for the accused that the complainant failed to bring on record the ledger, balance sheet and proof of delivery of goods in support of his case. However, it is pertinent to note that as CW1, the complainant has not once stated that the said documents were not available with him. Rather, the complainant clearly mentioned that the ledger account statement pertaining to the transaction in question was maintained by him and that the transaction in question must also have been reflected in his balance sheet for financial year 2015­2016. Despite this statement of the complainant, the accused did not ask for the production of these documents from the complainant. In such a scenario, when the accused did not seek to have these documents produced before the court despite the opportunity for the same, he cannot, at this stage, draw sweeping presumption that non­production of these documents should raise an adverse presumption against the complainant. On the contrary, the CC No. 461360/2016 M/s NAV Enterprises Vs. Inderdeep Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 17 conduct of the accused in not having these documents called in the court raises an adverse inference against the accused himself to the effect that he did not ask for these documents because they might have been in favour of the complainant (reliance placed upon Suresh Thomas v. Mod Enterprises, Crl. Revision Petition No.512/2016, Delhi High Court).
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1