Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.22 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Suresh Chandra Goyal vs Amit Singhal on 14 May, 2015
20. Further, accused has stated that cheque in question was given as a
RAM SINGH MEENA VS JEET RAM MEENA
CC NO.20607-19 Page no.9 of 14
security cheque. Before, evaluating the claim of the accused let us understand
the position with regard to the security cheque as settled by Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in Suresh Chand Goyal vs Amit Sighal; "The contention that
the cheque was issued only as security is preposterous. The cheque whether
issued for payment of debt or as security makes no distinction in law. The
cheque is a negotiable instrument, it may be that sometimes the cheque is
issued with a request on the part of the drawer to defer the presentation of the
cheque for some time to enable the drawer to make payment by cash and take
back the cheque or allow time to arrange funds for encashment of cheque.
When the amount is not paid as per oral understanding the payee is well
justified to present the cheque for encashment. The cheque even if it is issued
as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security
at the hands of payee. Therefore, merely because the drawer contends that it
is issued as security is not a ground to exonerate the penal liability under
Sec.138 of the NI Act". Therefore, the defence of the accused that cheque in
question was issued as security cheque has no force.
Rohitbhai J Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 15 March, 2019
In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rohitbhai J Patel vs The State Of Gujarat, criminal appeal no. 508/19
wherein it has been categorically held that the complainant need not prove
the source of funds which were subsequently used for advancement of loan
till the time accused has discharged his burden. In the present case accused
has failed to discharge his initial burden of proof.
Ragni Chopra vs Rajesh & Ors. on 17 December, 2012
In Ravi Chopra v. State and others [2008 (102) DRJ 147], the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that if a blank signed cheque is given
then it is possible that the drawer has consented impliedly or expressly to
filling up of the cheque by the payee on a later date.