Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Rep By Its Kartha Sri.A.R.Sridhara ... vs Partner Of M/S Sri.Shiva Shakthi ... on 11 January, 2022 cites

H. Pukhraj vs D. Parasmal on 6 August, 2014

24. Point No.4: Since this court has already held that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the accused has committed an offence U/s 138 of NI Act. It is worth to note that the offence is of the nature of civil wrong. This court has power to impose both sentence of imprisonment and fine on the accused. This court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to impose the sentence of fine only on the accused, instead of sentencing him to undergo 39 C.C.No.4166 OF 2018 SCCH-26 imprisonment. Hon'ble supreme court of India in a decision reported in 2015(17) SCC 368 in a case of H.K.Pukhraj Vs D.Parsmal observed that having regard to the length of trial and date of issuance of cheque it is necessary to award reasonable interest on the cheque amount along with cost of litigation. Further accused has to compensate the complainant in terms of money." In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following:­ ­: O R D E R :­ By Acting U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s 138 of NI Act.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 450 - Full Document

M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian on 10 February, 2021

18. On careful examination of all the documents of complainant, it is very clear that the complainant proprietorship or firm/HUF filed this complaint well within time and complied all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881. The presumption Under Section 139 of the NI Act is a presumption of law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the court in all the cases once the factum of dishonor is established. The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The standard of such rebuttable evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be sufficient to prove the case. Therefore a mere explanation is not sufficient to rebut this presumption of law. It is profitable to refer and relied Hon'ble Apex court recent decision passed in Criminal Appeal No.123/2021 arising out of special leave petition (criminal) 1876/2018 between M/s Kalamani Tex and another Vs P.Balasubramanian disposal date on 10­02­2021 (three judges bench). In this case, Apex court held that, "once signature on cheque admitted by the 33 C.C.No.4166 OF 2018 SCCH-26 accused, court ought to have presume that, cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt."
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 840 - S Kant - Full Document
1