Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)
Anju Arora vs . Vikas Gupta on 15 February, 2016 cites

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

5­ Let us now examine whether the complainant has proved the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act or not. 5.1 The first ingredient of the offence stands proved as original cheque is placed on record as Ex. CW1/A and issuance of same is admitted by the accused in his defence plea to the notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C as well as in his own oral testimony (cross examination) as DW2. It is settled law that a signed cheque by the account holder is a complete instrument and the rest of the portions of the cheque can be filled by the complainant. Hence the first ingredient stands proved. 5.2 The second ingredient of the offence is that the cheque must have been issued in discharge of legal liability. As the signatures on the cheque are admitted, the presumptions raised under Section 139 of the Act become applicable and the issuance of cheque in discharge of the legal liability stands proved. The law on this point has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Mr. Rakesh Agarwal vs High Court Of Delhi on 10 June, 2009

2­ Thereafter, notice was framed against the accused on 31.10.2011. As per the procedure laid down in Rajesh Agarwal Vs. State (Judgment of Delhi High Court) defence plea was recorded. Thereafter, application U/s 145(2) N.I Act was allowed, pre­summoning evidence was adopted by the complainant in post summoning evidence. Complainant was cross examined and CE was closed on 16.10.14. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded wherein he deposed that he has an agreement with the complainant for sale of shop at Eros Metro Mall and the complainant had paid part payment which was 25% of the total sale amount. However, the complainant did not pay rest of the amount. When the part payment was made 2% commission was released to the accused and out of that the present cheque was given to the complainant which was PDC subject to compliance by the complainant of the terms of the agreement which was oral. It was also settled between the complainant and builder Ajay Enterprises in writing that at the time of booking 25%, within six months date of booking as 70% and at the time of possession as 5% + other charges will be paid but till date the remaining amount was not paid by the complainant. The accused has preferred to lead evidence in CC No. 212/2/13 2 of 10 his defence and examined one Vishal as DW1, himself as DW2 and Sushil Chopra as DW3.
Central Information Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1   2 Next