Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.58 seconds)Section 391 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
M/S. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr vs M/S. National Panasonic India Ltd on 12 December, 2008
5.1 When the applicant was asked whether he wanted to examine any
witnesses in his further statement under Section 313 of the Code, he
replied in the affirmative that he wanted to examine witnesses. Thus the
contention of the applicantaccused was that he wanted to lead further
evidence about service of notice, and the same was in the background of
abovementioned facts on record. The observation and finding regarding
service of notice was that the notice sent by UPC had not returned but one
sent by Registered Post A.D. Returned with endorsement not found. The
proper service of notice in the proceedings for offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an important requirement of law,
which is emphasised by Courts. The decision in Harman Electronics
Private Limited and another Vs National Panasonic India Private
Limited [(2009) 1 SCC 720] highlights importance of service of notice in
proceedings under section 138 of the Act. It is held and observed that it is
one thing to say that presumption is raised where notice is served, but it is
another thing to say that service of notice may not be held to be of any
significance or may be held to be wholly unnecessary.
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Kantibhai Atmaram Patel vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 24 February, 1995
5.3 In Gautambhai Bababhai alias Shantibhai Patel Vs State of
Gujarat and another [2012(2) GLR 1073], this Court held that
additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code in appeal has to be
allowed in a case where the fact if proved, goes to the root of the matter,
or it affects conviction of a person. The said case also arose from the
proceedings under Section 138 of the Act and the applicant of that case
wanted to lead additional evidence in the appeal by examining Manager of
the Bank to prove that the cheques which were dishonoured were not
Page 8 of 10
HC-NIC Page 8 of 10 Created On Sat Aug 12 15:38:30 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/4112/2016 JUDGMENT
signed by him, nor were drawn from the bank account maintained by him.
In that case too the Court below taking view that at the time of trial, the
applicant was given opportunity to lead evidence.
Gautambhai Bababhai @ Shantibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 12 February, 2013
5.4 It was inter alia observed in Gautambhai Patel (supra), that since
the contention of the accused was that the cheques in question did not
belong to him and the same were not drawn from his bank account, if
such fact is proved, it may end up with a situation where the accused may
not be convicted. It was, therefore, reasoned that when the accused wanted
to bring such important aspect by leading further evidence, the same was
required to be granted. In that case also, it was specific case of the
applicantaccused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of
the Code that cheques did not belong to him.
1