Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)
Cc No. 616599/16 Smt.Sumitra Devi vs Smt.Basanti Dass on 10 October, 2019 cites

Smt. Sumitra vs State Of Chhattisgarh 6 Wps/4255/2018 ... on 12 July, 2018

25. Lastly, it is to be noted that no doubt in the complaint, complainant has mentioned that she firstly gave loan to the accused on 07.04.2009 and in the cross examination complainant has specifically deposed that prior to 2012 she had CNR No:DL­SE­02­002276­2014 Page No. 18 of 19 CC No. 616599/16 Smt.Sumitra Devi Vs Smt.Basanti Dass not advanced any loan to the accused. However, this is only a minor contradiction for which the accused is not entitled for any benefit.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957

"Because both Section 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, as noted in State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, (AIR 1958 SC 61), it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual CNR No:DL­SE­02­002276­2014 Page No. 11 of 19 CC No. 616599/16 Smt.Sumitra Devi Vs Smt.Basanti Dass basis for the raising of the presumption had been established. It introduced an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid).
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 853 - J L Kapur - Full Document
1   2 Next