Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.30 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant on 7 March, 2022
(17) AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 1931 (ASHOK
SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTA PRADESH), wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred the judgment of
TEDHI SINGH VS. NARAYAN DASS MAHANT. In para 22 of
18
Cri Appeal No.452/2023
the judgment also held that the complainant is not
required at threshold to prove his financial capacity
unless the accused specifically dispute it.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
(18) He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble supreme
Court reported in (2007) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 555
(C.C.ALAVI HAJI VS. PALAPETTY MUHAMMED AND
ANOTHER), wherein in para 8 it is held as follows.
R. Vijayan vs Baby & Anr on 11 October, 2011
In my humbly view the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble supreme Court in these cited decisions are aptly
applicable o the present case. During the course of cross
examination of DW1 / accused he has admitted the
receipt of loan amount from the complainant through
cheque. He has not disputed his signature on Ex.P1 and
20
Cri Appeal No.452/2023
P2 cheques. He has admitted the receipt of legal notice,
as per Ex.P5. It is not the contention of the accused is t
hat after receiving legal notice from the complainant he
has issued any reply notice to the complainant by taking
contention which had taken by him in his examination in-
chief. On perusal of the cross examination of DW1, it
would go to show that he has admitted document E.P18
letter of loan settlement. It is important to note that at
the time of examination of the accused before the trial
court u/S.313 of CrPC he has stated that he borrowed
hand loan from the complainant, but he has repaid the
same, but he is due only a sum of Rs.36,000/-. Even
during the course of cross examination of DW1 he has
admitted that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.8 lakhs from
the complainant and he is ready to repay the amount of
Rs.8 lakhs. Thus there is nothing to prove by the
complainant and to show that Ex.P1 and P2 issued for
discharge of debt or liability by the accused borrowed a
hand loan of Rs.8.5 lakhs from him and Ex.P1 and P2 is
that of his bank account of the accused and Ex.P1 dn P2
containing signature of accused. It is for the accused to
rebut he presumption available to the complainant
u/S.139 & 118 of NI Act. But except self serving
21
Cri Appeal No.452/2023
statement of DW1 there is no documents on the side of
the accused to show that he has paid the borrowed
amount to the complainant. Since the accused has
admitted borrowing loan amount from the complainant
and also admitted that Ex.P1 and P2 of his bank account
and Ex.P1 and P2 containing his signature the
presumption can be drawn u/S139 & 118 of NI ct. It is
important to refer some of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts.