Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
John K Abraham vs Simon C Abraham & Anr on 5 December, 2013
In another decision reported in (2014) 2
SCC 236 in the case of John K. Abhraham Vs.
Simon C.Abraham and another., wherein the
Hon'ble Apex court held that " In the present case
58 C.C.No.8995/2015 J
the complainant not aware of the date when
substantiate amount of Rs.1,50,000/= was
advanced by him to the appellant/accused -
respondent/ complainant failed to produce
relevant documents in support of alleged source
for advancing money to the Accused -
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
17. It is settled law that, once the issuance of
the cheque infavour of holder in due course is
admitted by the drawer, presumption can be drawn
about the existence of legally recoverable debt
18 C.C.No.8995/2015 J
U/s.139 of N.I. Act, terms in favour of holder in
due course. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa
Vs. Mohan case reported in 2010(11) SCC 441,
has held that, "issuance of the cheque would
create a presumption with respect to legally
enforceable debt in favour of the payee of the
cheque", however, the said presumption is
rebuttable. In the present case, it has tobe
examined as to whether the Accused has rebutted
the presumption successfully or not by examining
oral and documentary evidence adduced by the both
parties.
Section 3 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
K Subramani vs K Damodara Naidu on 13 November, 2014
-, Judgment of acquittal is justified- As seen
from the complaint there is no statement as to
when the amount was actually given to the
Accused. The complainant has merely mentioned
the date of issuance of cheque without any
material particulars of the transaction. The
cheque in question undoubtedly is signed by the
accused. The dispute raised is entries made in
the cheque are not in his handwriting. - It is not
the case of the complainant that cheque was
57 C.C.No.8995/2015 J
issued in blank and filled up later with consent
of the accused- FURTHER HELD, perusal of
cheque at Ex.P.1 makes it manifest that except
signature all other entries are in different hand
writing, different ink and undoubtedly made at
different time. In this view it is difficult to
accept the version of the complainant. CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 378(4) - APPEAL
AGAINST ACQUITTAL - DISCUSSED. It is a relevant
here to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India
reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99 in the case of
K.Subramani Vs. K. Damodar Naidu., wherein the
Hon'ble Apex court held that " Debt, Financial and
Monetary Laws- Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 - Ss, 138, 118 and 139 - Dishonour of
cheque - Legally recoverable debt not proved as
complainant could not prove source of income
from which alleged loan was made to appellant-
accused - Presumption infavour of holder of
cheque, hence, held, Stood rebutted- Acquittal
restored".