Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)
Yamuna Ramesh vs Nalina Senthilkumar on 27 March, 2026 cites

Baidhnath Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2023

8.Learned counsel further submitted that the loan agreement (Ex.P13) executed at Bangalore on 16.09.2009, but notarised on 10.06.2010 after the power of attorney given to PW1 by PW2 to file the complaint on 19.05.2010. The post notarisation raises doubt on the genuineness of the documents. Thus, the foundational basis on which the complaint initiated becomes highly doubtful. The Courts below failed to consider that the entire transaction was a business investment that commenced as a partnership venture entered between the complainant and her brother on one side and the accused and her husband on other side and Ex.D6 document in this regard is not properly considered. The Courts below failed to consider and appreciate the evidence of defence witnesses is in violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dudhnath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1981 SC 91. In the present case, the accused rebutted the presumption which the Courts below failed to consider. The Courts below ought to have seen that the complainant miserably failed to prove the exact quantum of liability accrued. Further the accused rebutted the presumption taking consistent stand by examining herself and others as defence witnesses Page No.8 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1192 & 1258 of 2020 and also by producing defence exhibits. Merely for the reason that the cheques (Exs.P1 & P2) and signature not disputed and finding that the statutory presumption under Sections 118 & 139 N.I Act proved the trial Court convicting the accused, is not proper, which is in violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court. In view of the above, the revision to be allowed and the judgment of the Courts below to be set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - S Dwivedi - Full Document
1