Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)

Narayan Prasad Saini vs Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit 60 ... on 4 May, 2018

10. On 01.03.2023 additional written submissions were filed on behalf of the complainant by Ld. Counsel Sh. Durga Prasad wherein it is stated that the accused has borrowed a loan of Rs. 4,40,000 from the complainant which was not rebutted/objected by the accused by giving a single suggestion that his submissions Anita Saini Vs. Rakesh Kumar Singh 12/36 were wrong or she is deposing falsely that no loan of Rs. 4,40,000 was ever being given. Further there were no suggestion of Rs. 50,000 in the account of Mr Chetan, if this question has been asked to the complainant, she could have had explained on which circumstances the said cheque was encashed by Mr Chetan, thus admitting to the fact of borrowing the loan of Rs. 4,40,000/-. It is also admitted by the accused that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of his liability. However, he took a false defence that he had repaid the loan in cash but no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the accused in his defence. Moreover, not even a single suggestion was given on the cross examinations of the accused that the accused has repaid the loan amount. Further more, that the accused has miserably failed to lead any evidence, the mode of the repayment of the loan, and in whose presence the loan amount was repaid to the complainant. The accused also submitted that even in respect of the same, the complainant has taken the cash payment but did not return the cheque which were given as security.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - M M Shrivastava - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

In Rohit Bhai, the Trial Court found that the accused had admitted his signature on the cheques and with reference to the decision in the case of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, drew the presumption envisaged by Section 139 of NI Act. However, the trial Court found that the complainant failed to lead any evidence in regard to his financial capacity to advance loan. The Hon'ble High Court reversed the decision of acquittal and observed that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act was required to be drawn that the cheques were issued for consideration and until contrary was proved, such presumption would hold good. The Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the decision of Hon'ble High Court and sustained the conviction of the accused. It is relevant to reproduce the para 17 and 18 in this regard :
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next