Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
12. Now, coming to the facts of the present complaint case keeping in view the
essential ingredients of section 138 of NI Act. In this case, it is not disputed by the
accused that the cheque in question bears his signatures and belongs to him of a bank
account being maintained by him though he denied the fact of filling up the cheque in
question. The said proposition has been duly observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bir Singh versus Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197. The relevant paras
are being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Triyambak S.Hegde vs Sripad on 23 September, 2021
And further reiterated in Triyambak S Hedge vs Sripad (2021) SCC
Online SC 788. In the present case, accused has duly admitted her signatures
upon the cheque in question though denied the fact of having the liability of
cheque amount in question, however he failed to establish this fact by any
cogent evidence or any plausible explainantion thereby attracting the initial
presumption of section 139 of NI Act in favour of the complainant. Further,
Digitally signed
NIDHI by NIDHI BALA
Date:
Rajesh Agarwal vs State & Anr. on 28 July, 2010
Further, it has been held in Rajesh Agarwal v. State, 2010 SCC online Del 2501
that:-