Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Shyam Pal vs Dayawati Besoya And Anr on 28 October, 2016
In V.K. Bansal's case (supra),
CA No.204445/2016 Deepak Kumar Chakraborty v. P.P. Khurana & Ors. Page No.14 of 15
Bensan's case (supra) and Shyam Pal's case (supra), it has been
clearly held/observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the direction
regarding concurrent running of sentence under Section 427 of the
Code can be passed with regard to substantive sentence only and
provisions of Section 427 of the Code do not permit a direction for the
concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences
awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. In the present
case and other connected seven cases, no substantive sentence has
been passed by the learned Trial Court and sentence of six months
have been passed only in default of payment of fine/compensation.
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 146 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 427 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
In K.
Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (AIR 1999 SC 3762), it was
observed that as the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of
the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of N.I Act can
legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration
on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the N.I Act enjoins
on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the
discharges of any debt or liability. The burden was on the accused to
rebut the aforesaid presumption. The accused could not rebut the said
presumption. Accused has not examined his friend Saket Grover to
show that the complainant invested the amount in the stock market.
Further, he himself has admitted in his evidence (DW1) that the
agreement was made as a loan. Hence, it has been proved on record
that appellant had issued cheque no.726200 (Ex. CW-1/3) for the sum
of Rs.5,00,000/- for discharge of his partial liability.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1