Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)
Mahesh Mehta Huf And Mahesh G. Mehta ... vs State Of Goa Through The Public ... on 22 November, 2005 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors on 27 August, 2004

14. On the other hand, Mr. Mascarenhas has submitted it is not permissible for this Court in revisional jurisdiction to reappreciate the entire evidence as if it is a second appeal and in this context, Mr. Mascarenhas has placed reliance on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others (2004 AIR SCW 4767). There has not been a serious dispute as far as the issuance of the said two cheques by the accused to the Complainant. I have already referred to relevant answers given by the accused when the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code and the said answers could certainly be construed as implied admissions that the Complainant had invested a sum of Rs.4.12 lakhs and the said cheques were issued by the accused to the Complainant towards the dues owed by the accused to the Complainant as on 3091999. In fact, it appears that the Complainant reposed too much trust in the accused and this can be gathered from the fact that the Complainant even admitted in her evidence that it is the accused who had informed her that the accused had owed to the Complainant a sum of Rs.4.12 lakhs and that was after some payment was made by the accused to the Complainant when she was in the hospital due to her attack. If at all the Complainant did not remember what was the total amount of money invested by her with the accused, it is possibly because of her old age or because admittedly the investments on behalf of the Complainant were made with the accused through her niece, the said Selma. A cheque carries with it presumptions under Section 138 as well as Section 139 of the Act. Considering the totality of the facts stated on behalf of the Complainant it could not be said that the accused had displaced the said presumptions in any manner. Both the Courts below have rightly believed the version of the Complainant that the said cheques were indeed issued by the accused in repayment of the money invested by the Complainant with the accused and, therefore, in my view, there is no further scope to interfere with the said findings in revisional jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 836 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1