Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Shrichand @ Shrikant vs Smt.Shanti Devi And Ors on 10 March, 2022
2025.09.08
15:16:17
+0530
(Anjali Singh)
JMFC-NI Act-03, PHC,
New Delhi/08.09.2025
CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI 12
Shrikant Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh 55 Crmp/58/2018 ... on 16 January, 2018
28. The complainant was examined on the document. He was evasive to answer whether
Mr. Ramanuj Mishra was his brother-in-law. In the first instance, he outrightly denied
the fact. Later, when a court question was put to him, he stated that 'he was not sure'.
It is beyond reasonable comprehension as to how the complainant can plead not
knowing his brother-in-law. It appears that the complainant was being evasive in
Digitally
signed by
ANJALI
ANJALI SINGH
CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI SINGH Date:
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197
Digitally
signed by
CT CASES 43859/2016 SHRIKANT PANDEY V. SHANTI DEVI 7
ANJALI
ANJALI SINGH
SINGH Date:
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
20. A perusal of the record reveals that the legal demand notice was sent to the accused
on 12.02.2015. The tracking report on record does not showcase if the notice was duly
delivered. The accused at the stage of framing of notice denied receiving the legal
demand notice. However, at the stage of SA under Section 313 Cr.P.C, she admitted
the correctness of the address to which the legal demand notice was addressed to.
20.1 In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble SC in CC Alavi Haji v. Palapetty
Md.7, once it is proved that the legal demand notice was duly sent by registered
post on the last known correct address of the accused, the presumption under
Section 27 General Clauses Act comes into play and then the onus shifts on the
accused to prove that s/he did not receive the legal demand notice. However,
barring a bare denial, the accused has not brought on record any evidence to
support his assertion about non-receipt of the legal demand notice.
20.2 Further, it is settled law that an accused who claims that s/he did not receive
the legal demand notice, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the
6
Inchoate Stamped Instruments, Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
7
AIR 2007 SC (SUPP) 1705
Digitally
signed by
ANJALI
ANJALI SINGH
SINGH Date: