Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.91 seconds)Gorantla Venkateswara Rao vs Kolla Veera Raghava Rao And Anr. on 7 October, 2005
In the case of Gorantla Venkateswara Rao Vs. Kolla Veera
Raghava Rao & Anr. 2006 Crl. L.J. 1, relied upon by the complainant, it
has been held that if the legal notice served to accused has not been
replied then an inference can be drawn that accused has borrowed the
amount from the complainant and cheque was issued for repayment of
loan amount. In the present case also, accused has admitted that he has
received the legal notice from the complainant but the same has not been
replied by the accused. Accused has failed to give the reasons as to why
the legal notice was not replied to complainant stating that he was under
Manju Shree vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 27 August, 2002
In the judgment of the case of Manju Shree Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Anr. 2003 (1) DCR 581, relied upon by complainant, it has
been held that if FIR was not lodged by the accused for theft of cheque
then the said plea of accused cannot be considered by the Court.
CC No. 30/2010 Page No. 10 of 12
However, in the present case, the facts are different as complaint with the
police has been lodged by the accused, though the same has not been
recorded as FIR by the police. Therefore, the said judgment is not
applicable in the present case.
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1