Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)

Dinesh Kumar Son Of Sh. Ramesh Chand ... vs Smt. Pawan Devi (Age 32 Years) Wife Of ... on 5 September, 2012

7. Since the issuance of the cheque in question has not been disputed by the accused in the present case, presumptions under Section 118 read with Section 139 of NI Act about the cheque in question having been issued for consideration and in discharge of legal liability arise in favour of the complainant. The main defence taken by the accused in the present case is that the cheque in question was not given by the accused to the complainant, rather, it was given to one Asif Ali regarding a loan of Rs. 30,000/­ taken by the accused from the said Asif Ali. It has further CC No. 1470/14 Pradip Kumar Sharma Vs. Pawan Kumar Page 8 to 17 been contended on behalf of the accused that the said loan of Rs. 30,000/­ was duly repaid to Asif Ali by the brother of the accused namely Adesh Kumar. The accused has examined his brother Adesh Kumar as a defence witness in this regard. The said Adesh Kumar stepped into the witness box as DW1 and testified that he had repaid the loan taken by his brother (accused herein) from Asif Ali. However, the testimony of DW1 does not inspire much confidence for various reasons. First, the said DW1 Adesh Kumar is the real brother of the accused and, hence, the possibility of his deposing falsely in order to help the accused cannot be ruled out. Second, DW1 is only a hearsay witness to the alleged loan transaction between the accused and Asif Ali. It was stated by DW1 on oath that "in March, 2014 my younger brother took Rs. 30,000/­ as loan from one Asif Ali who is resident of Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. After about 3­4 months I came to know about the aforesaid loan and that my brother had given 3 cheques to said Asif Ali as security".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - K Kannan - Full Document

M/S The Jammu & Kashmir Bank vs Abhishek Mittal on 26 May, 2011

9. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also argued that the details on the cheque in question are not in the handwriting of the accused as the same was given blank signed security cheque. However, I do not find much merit in this argument. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Jammu & Kashmir Bank v. Abhishek Mittal (Crl. A No. 294/2011 decided on 26.05.2011) that "there is no law that a person drawing the cheque has to necessarily fill it up in his own handwriting.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 330 - A K Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next