Sec.138& Sec.139 of N.I.Act - Issue of Cheque proved - Capacity to lent such huge amount not pleaded nor proved - Trial court dismissed complaint as the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt - High court went wrong and remanded the case - Apex court set aside the same -2015 S.C.-MSK LAW REPORTS 19



The  trial  court  correctly held
that the complainant had no source of income to lend a sum  of  Rs.14  lakhs
to the accused and he failed to prove  that  there  is  legally  recoverable
debt payable by the accused to him and that in discharge of  said  liability
he issued the cheque and accordingly acquitted the accused  for the  alleged
offence  under  Section  138  of  N.I.  Act.

  The source claimed  by
the complainant is  savings from his salary and  an  amount  of  Rs.5  lakhs
derived by him from sale of site No.45 belonging to  him.   

 Neither  in  the
complaint nor in the chief-examination of  the  complainant,  there  is  any
averment with regard to the sale price of site No.45.   

 The  concerned  sale
deed was also  not  produced.  Though  the  complainant  was  an  income-tax
assessee he had admitted in his evidence that he had not shown the  sale  of
site No.45 in his income-tax return. 

 On the  contrary  the  complainant  has
admitted in his evidence that in the year 1997 he had  obtained  a  loan  of
Rs.1,49,205/- from L.I.C. 

 It is pertinent to note that the alleged  loan  of
Rs.14 lakhs is claimed to have been  disbursed  in  the  year  1997  to  the
accused.  Further  the  complainant  did  not  produce  bank  statement   to
substantiate his claim.  

 The trial court took into account the testimony  of
the wife of the complaint in another criminal  case  arising  under  Section
138  of  the  N.I.  Act  in  which  she  has   stated   that   the   present
appellant/accused  had  not  taken  any  loan  from  her  husband.    On   a
consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence  the trial court  came
to the conclusion that the complainant had no  source of income  to  lend  a
sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the accused and he  failed  to  prove  that  there  is
legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to him.-  2015 S.C. MSK LAW REPORTS 19 

Popular posts from this blog

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more