Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.97 seconds)
Documents citing V. Kutumba Rao vs M. Chandrasekhar Rao And Anr. on 20 March, 2003

State vs . Kulbhushan Jain & Ors. on 25 January, 2020

It has been held by Andhra Pradesh High Court in case titled as V. Kutumb Rao Vs. M. Chandrasekhar Rao and Anr., 2003 Cri L.J 4405 that, "two offfences covered by Section 420, IPC and 138, Negotiable Instruments Act are quite distinct and different offences even though sometimes there may be overlapping and sometimes the accused person may commit both the offences. The two offences cannot be construed as arising out of same set of facts. Therefore, Section 300, Cr.P.c. is not a bar for separate prosecutions for the offences punishable under Section 420, IPC and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The question of application of the principles of double jeopardy or rule estoppel does not come into play. The acquittal of the accused for charge under Section 420, IPC does not operate as estoppel or res judicata for a finding of fact or law to be given in prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The issue of fact and law to be tried and decided in prosecution under Section 420, IPC are not the same issue of fact and law to be tried in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act".
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure ... vs Sanjay Kumar on 31 July, 2017

13.  I have also gone through the judgment titled "V. Kutumba  Rao   vs.   M.  Chandrasekhar  Rao   and  Anr."   2003  Cri.   L.   J.  4405,  wherein,   in   para   no.   11  of   the   said   judgment,   it   is   held   that  "in   my  considered opinion the offences under sections 420, IPC and 138 of the   Act   are   distinct   and   separate   offences.   If   a   person   fraudulently   or   dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property or to do or   omit   to   do   anything   which   he   would   not   do   or   omit   if   he   were   not   deceived and such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or   harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property commits an  offence of cheating. Such a person commits the offence punishable under   section   420,   IPC.   In   a   prosecution   under   section   138,   Negotiable   Instruments   Act   any   inducement   so   as   to   make   the   other   person   to   deliver   any   property   etc.   as   defined   in   section   415,   IPC,   is   not   an   ingredient. If a person issues a cheque and subsequently if the cheque   was dishonoured by the bank for want of funds, etc. and thereafter even   after issuance of demand notice, the said person fails to pay the amount   covered   by   the   cheque   within   the   time   stipulated   by   the   Negotiable   Instrument   Act,   that   person   commits   an   offence   punishable   under   section 138 of the Act. The question of inducement to other person to   part with any property to do or omit to do anything does not at all arise   for a decision in a prosecution under section 138 of the Act. The offence   CIS­ Criminal Revision No. 146/17.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure ... vs Rajiv Vaswani on 31 July, 2017

13.  I have also gone through the judgment titled "V. Kutumba  Rao  vs.  M.   Chandrasekhar   Rao  and   Anr."   2003   Cri.  L.   J.   4405,  wherein,   in   para   no.   11   of   the   said   judgment,   it   is   held   that  "in   my   considered opinion the offences under sections 420, IPC and 138 of the   Act   are   distinct   and   separate   offences.   If   a   person   fraudulently   or   dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property or to do or   omit   to   do   anything   which   he   would   not   do   or   omit   if   he   were   not   deceived and such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or   harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property commits an  offence of cheating. Such a person commits the offence punishable under   section   420,   IPC.   In   a   prosecution   under   section   138,   Negotiable   Instruments   Act   any   inducement   so   as   to   make   the   other   person   to   deliver   any   property   etc.   as   defined   in   section   415,   IPC,   is   not   an   ingredient. If a person issues a cheque and subsequently if the cheque   was dishonoured by the bank for want of funds, etc. and thereafter even   after issuance of demand notice, the said person fails to pay the amount   covered   by   the   cheque   within   the   time   stipulated   by   the   Negotiable   Instrument   Act,   that   person   commits   an   offence   punishable   under   section 138 of the Act. The question of inducement to other person to   part with any property to do or omit to do anything does not at all arise   for a decision in a prosecution under section 138 of the Act. The offence   CIS­ Criminal Revision No. 145/17.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure ... vs Achint Naveen on 31 July, 2017

13.  I have also gone through the judgment titled "V. Kutumba  Rao  vs.  M.   Chandrasekhar   Rao  and   Anr."   2003   Cri.  L.   J.   4405,  wherein,   in   para   no.   11   of   the   said   judgment,   it   is   held   that  "in   my   considered opinion the offences under sections 420, IPC and 138 of the   Act   are   distinct   and   separate   offences.   If   a   person   fraudulently   or   dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property or to do or   omit   to   do   anything   which   he   would   not   do   or   omit   if   he   were   not   deceived and such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or   harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property commits an  offence of cheating. Such a person commits the offence punishable under   section   420,   IPC.   In   a   prosecution   under   section   138,   Negotiable   Instruments   Act   any   inducement   so   as   to   make   the   other   person   to   deliver   any   property   etc.   as   defined   in   section   415,   IPC,   is   not   an   ingredient. If a person issues a cheque and subsequently if the cheque   was dishonoured by the bank for want of funds, etc. and thereafter even   after issuance of demand notice, the said person fails to pay the amount   covered   by   the   cheque   within   the   time   stipulated   by   the   Negotiable   Instrument   Act,   that   person   commits   an   offence   punishable   under   section 138 of the Act. The question of inducement to other person to   CIS­ Criminal Revision No. 144/17.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1