Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Sh. Sharda Nand Singh vs Sh. Satish Kumar on 20 January, 2012 cites

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

9. Having drawn my attention on the testimony of CW1 Sh. Sharda Nand Singh, documents Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/10, statement of accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., documents Ex. DW1/CX1 and Ex. DW1/CX2 and the bond Ex. X furnished by the accused before the court and the law laid down in Rangappa v. Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898 it is submitted by counsel for the complainant that in the month of June, 2005 the accused had taken loan of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the complainant and to discharge his debt he had drawn two cheques Ex. CW1/1 and Ex. CW1/4 in favour of the complainant which were presented by the complainant for encashment but the same returned unpaid alongwith memos Ex. CW1/2, Ex. CW1/3, Ex. CW1/5 and Ex. CW1/6 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. It is further submitted by counsel for the complainant that a demand notice dated 22.11.2005, a copy of which is Ex. CW1/7, was served by the complainant upon the accused by registered post with AD and UPC whereby the accused was called upon to make payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice but despite receipt of the notice the accused did not make payment of the C. C. No. 92/1/09 Page no. 6 of 21 cheque amount. It is further submitted by counsel for the complainant that all the ingredients of offence punishable under section 138 of Act 26 of 1881 and conditions precedent for making complaint have been proved by the complainant against the accused in respect of cheques Ex. CW1/1 and Ex. CW1/4 therefore, the accused be convicted and punished for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of Act 26 of 1881 in respect of cheques Ex. CW1/1 and Ex. CW1/4. It is also submitted by counsel for the complainant that the defence taken by the accused is frivolous and the testimony of the accused and his brother who appeared as DW2 cannot be believed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Nijjer Agro Foods Limited And Ors. vs Shri Nasib Chand And Anr. on 14 October, 2003

10. Per contra, having drawn my attention on the testimony of the accused and DW2 Sh. Rajender Kumar and the law laid down in M/s Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd. and others v. Sh. Nasib Chand and another, 2003 [3] JCC 304 it is submitted by counsel for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated and he be acquitted. It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that the accused had not taken any loan of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the complainant in the month of June, 2005 and instead the loan of Rs. 50,000/­ was taken by him from the complainant in the month of January, 2004. It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that cheque Ex. CW1/1 was given in the month of January, 2004 as security for repayment of the loan amount but after some time the complainant told the accused that in the process of washing the cloths the cheque was washed out and C. C. No. 92/1/09 Page no. 7 of 21 therefore, the accused should give another cheque in substitution of cheque Ex. CW1/1 and thus, cheque Ex. CW1/4 was given by the accused to the complainant as security. It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that some payment against the cheque was made by the accused to the complainant by way of 7 or 8 installments of Rs.3000/­ each and rest of payments was adjusted against the price of the motorcycle and the sale consideration of the house sold by the accused to the complainant. It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that the ingredients of offence punishable under section 138 of Act 26 of 1881 have not been proved by cogent evidence therefore, the accused be acquitted.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - J D Kapoor - Full Document
1