Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (3.11 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
30. Admittedly, the appellant was able to establish that
the signature on the cheque in question was of the
respondent and in regard to the decision of this Court
in Bir Singh [Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 :
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant on 7 March, 2022
9. Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, learned counsel for the
appellant/complainant, submitted that the learned Trial Court
erred in dismissing the complaint. It was wrongly held that
the burden is upon the complainant to prove the source of
5
2025:HHC:11008-DB
funds. Learned Trial Court overlooked the presumption
contained in Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act; therefore, he
prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment
passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tedhi Singh v.
Narayan Dass Mahant, (2022) 6 SCC 735 in support of his
submission.
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
After referring to a catena of judgments, this
Court culled out the following general principles
regarding the powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal
in the following words: (Chandrappa
case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC
415: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325], SCC p. 432, para 42)
'42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
the powers of the appellate court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Surendra Singh vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 4 December, 2018
12. The present appeal has been filed against a
judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 176 that the Court can interfere with a judgment
of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on
misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and
no reasonable person could have recorded the acquittal based
on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court. It was
observed: