Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)

Anil Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 31 Mcrc/530/2019 ... on 7 February, 2019

9. It stands established on record in the form of evidence of the complainant given vide affidavit (which can be read in evidence at all stages as per judgment of "Rajesh Agarwal Vs. State & Anr." 171 (2010) DELHI LAW TIMES 5, documents exhibited in evidence, admission of accused during accusations explained to him and statement of accused Anil Kumar v. C. Mukesh 9 of 10 recorded under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 281 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that accused never received any amount as loan from the complainant as alleged. The complainant has not been able to prove that the cheque in question was for discharge of legally enforceable liability as on the date of the cheque and hence the foremost ingredients of offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not established.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - S K Gupta - Full Document

Rajesh Agarwal vs State & Anr. on 28 July, 2010

9. It stands established on record in the form of evidence of the complainant given vide affidavit (which can be read in evidence at all stages as per judgment of "Rajesh Agarwal Vs. State & Anr." 171 (2010) DELHI LAW TIMES 5, documents exhibited in evidence, admission of accused during accusations explained to him and statement of accused Anil Kumar v. C. Mukesh 9 of 10 recorded under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 281 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that accused never received any amount as loan from the complainant as alleged. The complainant has not been able to prove that the cheque in question was for discharge of legally enforceable liability as on the date of the cheque and hence the foremost ingredients of offence punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not established.
1