Displaying 1 - 10 of 22 in 3 pages
M. S. Gopala Krishna
Wrote on 30 September 2016  

good judgement after completely analysing the defendants point of view before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka


nagendra
Wrote on 16 February 2016  

Date of instruction to stop the payment of cheque is not mentioned. So, it is being presumed that it was in 2006 / 2007.


Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Wrote on 30 January 2016  

excellent judgement


lata
Wrote on 25 January 2016  

if receipt is given to claim Mediclaim against the signed Cheque by the accused without date and amount, and he fails to pay even after realisation of claim what happens if the holder puts the date n fills the amount? can a Complaint sustain b4 the Magistrate?


lata
Wrote on 25 January 2016  

if receipt is given to claim Mediclaim against the signed Cheque by the accused without date and amount, and he fails to pay even after realisation of claim what happens if the holder puts the date n fills the amount? can a Complaint sustain b4 the Magistrate?


lata
Wrote on 25 January 2016  

if receipt is given to claim Mediclaim against the signed Cheque by the accused without date and amount, and he fails to pay even after realisation of claim what happens if the holder puts the date n fills the amount? can a Complaint sustain b4 the Magistrate?


O. Mahalakshmi
Wrote on 12 January 2016  

Good one


Madhava Rao Gorrepati
Wrote on 30 November 2015  

The presumption under section 139 as held in Rangappa case itself requires review. existence of debt should not be a matter of presumption but it should be a matter of proof. after the existence of debt is proved like any other fact, there can be presumption that the cheque was issued for the discharge of the debt. Moreover the criminal law is not meant for creating a machinery for easy recovery of money without payment of court fee etc., The Magistrate if sitting on civil side as Junior civil judge cannot pass a decree for Rs.five lakh in spite of full trial. But he can pass an order imposing fine equal to double the cheque amount. If the cheque is for Rs.one crore, the magistrate can pass an order of sentence imposing a fine of Rs.two crores and directing the cheque amount to be paid as compensation!!. So far as Andhra pradesh is concerned the Junior Civil Judge's pecuniary jurisdiction is only Rs.one lakh but when he sits in the capacity of Magistrate section 29 of the Cr.P.c. has no meaning in NI Act cases!! Why this dichotomy? G. Madhava Rao, Advocate, Nizamabad, Telangana State


Mahesh Vishwakarma
Wrote on 29 August 2015  

I am not convinced with the following portion of judgement; "However, it may be noted that the cheque was dishonoured because the payment was stopped and not for any other reason. This implies that the accused had knowledge of the cheque being presented to the bank, or else how would the accused have instructed her banker to stop the payment. Thus, the story brought out by the accused is unworthy of credit, apart from being unsupported by any evidence." I feel that this would be a biased approach. In the present situation yes there is nothing to corroborate the accuseds' version of story so the onus does not shift upon the complainant but as far as the story of instruction of stopping of payment is concerned it may be believed.


Muddanna
Wrote on 23 August 2015  


You need to be logged in to post comment





×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu

web analytics