Learn about
Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

         
    



Please Wait ..


Discussion > Criminal Law > Cheques > Documentary evidence   Unanswered Threads Post New Topic

Pages : 1


There are 3 Replies to this message


ramesh


wer
[ Scorecard : 108]
PRO CHAT CALL
Posted On 22 May 2012 at 17:29 Report Abuse

Hi,

While filing the  case under NI act ,

1.Is it essential that there must be a documentary evidence (Like loan agreement ,loan papers, any other type of documents to proove the liability etc) for lending the money?

or

an affidavit by the complaint regarding the lending of money and verbal statements / is sufficient?

Regards

Ramesh



Adv. Bharat Chugh


Advocate/Legal Consultant (bharat.law06@gmail.com)
[ Scorecard : 10324]
PRO CHAT CALL
Posted On 22 May 2012 at 18:07

It is always presumed that a negotiable instrument was given for consideration and in discharge of a liability, the onus to prove otherwise is on the accused. 


ADVOCATE DEFENSE


DEFENSE IS POWER OF NEGATIVE POWER OF DARKNESS.IT IS IMMENSE & PERPETUAL- firmaction@gmail.com
[ Scorecard : 14949]
PRO CHAT CALL
Posted On 22 May 2012 at 18:34

But not for cash loan.

 

Presumption is for legal liability and first burden is on the complainant to show that the liability was or is legal than accused has right to rebut it.

 

Law in nothing but common sense codified in words. Simple example a person gave a cheque for liabilities of share of stolen property or drugs / illicit liquor trade and it is bounce.

Whether liability is presumed no not at all.

THE INITIAL BURDEN IS ON COMPLAINANT TO SHOW THAT IT IS LEGAL LIABILITY.

 

 

SC has generally held that the provisions of NI act are legal fiction and hence all of them have to be strictly followed .lapses on the part of complainant are fatal.

 

 Most of the complainants  fail to follow many imp requirements and that is why it is always simple, sure and easy for any accused of cheque case to win.


R Trivedi


advocate.dma@gmail.com
[ Scorecard : 1490]
PRO CHAT CALL
Posted On 24 May 2012 at 10:06

There is no such presumption of "drawn" by the accused and there is no such presumption of amount in cheque being the total due amount.

 

The presumption is that the " Complainant RECEIVED" the cheque for any debt or liability. So both execution and debt has to be proved by the complainant. Accused cannot say merely without proof that the cheque is not meant for the transaction(s) suggested by the complainant.





Previous Thread
Previous
Next Thread
Next


Related Threads


Post your reply for Documentary evidence



Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to login


Not a member yet ?? Click here to signup

Message







    

  • This is a public forum. Avoid posting content which you do not wish to disclose in public.
  • Use thank button to convey your appreciation.
  • Maintain professionalism while posting and replying to topics.
  • Try to add value with your each post.





Subscribe to the latest topics :


Forum Home | Forum Portal | Control Center | Who is Where | Popular Threads | Today's Topic | Recent Posts | Today's Posts | Post New Topic | Thread With Files | Top Threads - Month | Unreplied Topics | Forum Stats