Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Yarab Pasha vs Pankaj Pathania on 4 January, 2025 cites

Rajesh Jain vs Ajay Singh on 9 October, 2023

22. The trial court by considering the entire materials on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption, which lies in favour of 18 CRL.A. No.25300/2022 the complainant and more over recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.Appeal at Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12802/2022, dated 09.10.2023 between Rajesh Jain v/s Ajay Singh has in detail discussed as to how the presumption operates and once the presumption operates, the onus rests on the accused to prove the non-existence of debt/liability. Wherein in the said above referred case, the accused was tried for the offence u/S 138 of N.I. Act. The trial court had acquitted the accused by considering that the onus of rebutting the presumption lay on the accused was discharged by raising a probable defence and the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and the defence of the accused has created a doubt regarding the truthfulness of the complainant case. Against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, the complainant had preferred the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. Wherein the Hon'ble High Court also upheld the order of acquittal holding that the complainant has failed to 19 CRL.A. No.25300/2022 prove that the cheque was issued in respect of legally enforceable debt. Wherein in the said case, it was the defence taken by the accused that the complainant had failed to mention the date, month and the year on which he advanced various sum of money towards the loan to the accused. The version of the complainant was doubtful, since the cheque was admittedly issued in part payment of outstanding dues and no where in the complaint or demand notice complainant disclosed the total amount loan to the accused. The court found that the complainant therein was an Orthopedic Surgeon could not have advance huge amount to an accused who was a Class-IV employee without an agreement or acknowledgement of loan advance etc. When the matter went up to Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court in detail have discussed as to when a presumption is raised, how the accused have to rebut the said presumption and when the burden shifts on the complainant and at para- 56, page-33 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed;
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document
1