Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Pine Product Industries And Anr. vs R.P. Gupta And Sons And Anr. on 6 December, 2006
12. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for appellant/accused that
the source of the payment has not been disclosed or proved by the
complainant on record. It is submitted in the absence of the source of
the payment allegedly made to the accused, the case filed by the
complainant is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the
appellant/accused in support of his arguments has relied upon
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as C. Antony Vs K G
Raghavan Nair AIR 2003 Supreme Court 182 and M/s Pine
Product Industries & Another Vs R P Gupta & Sons & Another
2007 (1) DCR 417.
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
15. Section 118 N.I.Act raises a presumption with regard to
the passing of the consideration of the cheque and the Section 139
N.I.Act raises a presumption that the holder of the cheque had issued
the cheque wholly or in part discharge of any debt or liability. Ld.
Trial Court in this regard has rightly relied upon one judgment of
UID No.54146/2016 Surjeet Singh Vs Umesh Pandey 10 of 13
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan, AIR
2010 SC 1898 wherein it has held as under:
"Once the cheque relates to the account of the
accused and he accepts and admits the
signatures on the said cheque, then initial
presumption as contemplated under Section
139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has to be
raised by the Court in favour of the
complainant".
C. Antony vs K.G. Raghavan Nair on 1 November, 2002
12. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for appellant/accused that
the source of the payment has not been disclosed or proved by the
complainant on record. It is submitted in the absence of the source of
the payment allegedly made to the accused, the case filed by the
complainant is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the
appellant/accused in support of his arguments has relied upon
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as C. Antony Vs K G
Raghavan Nair AIR 2003 Supreme Court 182 and M/s Pine
Product Industries & Another Vs R P Gupta & Sons & Another
2007 (1) DCR 417.
1