LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

balwinderverma   14 September 2017

Convicted under NI Act 138

Accused was convicted under NIAct 138 .the complainant fail to prove compromise with accused and also fail to prove friendly loan for Rs25Lac by cash given to accused. But lower court convicted for six months. Check amount was Rs90000/=I want help from lawyersclub member to get relief from sentence. Please reply me.Accused applied for relief in session courts.


 9 Replies

Sachin (N.A)     15 September 2017

Details provided are not enough to advice. You need to upload the judgement of trial court.

Vinod shah (legal assistance for victims of system. findjobs02@gmail.com)     15 September 2017

Draft the appeal memo properly after going thorugh all records of lower court, you can win.

If  you fail to raise proper legal issues there will be problems. You will get stay of conviction from SESSIONS COURT but there may be conditions depending upon how you present the appeal.

 

Many accused get convicted becasue they take defense of cash loan or security or stolen cheque and get convicted.

You have to raise technical issues which are many. Please contact by email for real time guidance in the matter.

 

balwinderverma   15 September 2017

Vinod Shah ji what is your email address please send me or my mob no. 9592135591

balwinderverma   15 September 2017

Vinod Shah ji what is your email address please send me or my mob no. 9592135591

Vinod shah (legal assistance for victims of system. findjobs02@gmail.com)     17 September 2017

mob -0 8180049564

whats up for documents- 8149408893

SANTOSHSINGH. (ADVOCATE sardarsena@gmail.com)     17 September 2017

As a rule lower courts are convicting the accused because of lousy defense of cash loan, security cheque and or stolen cheques. And not the least transection is no relflected in ITR.

In similar circumstances some hard working advocates do proper home work, prepare proper questions which lays the foundation of aquital .

In this back ground is the recent judgment of DELHI HIGH COURT and we reproduce the impartant para of the judgment for benefit of similar cases.

 

 

The petitioner has laid challenge to the judgment and order dated 06.10.2016/07.10.2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, South-01, N.I.Act, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.117/2014 whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of eight months, to pay a fine of Rs.50 lakhs payable as compensation to the respondent/complainant and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for four months and the judgment in appeal (Crl.Appeal No.54/2016) passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, CBI-03, P.C Act, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the judgment and order of conviction and sentence by the Trial Court has been affirmed and upheld.

In this back ground the DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT.

on 14 September, 2017.

25. True it is that in all cases where the loan transaction is not referred to or reflected in the Income Tax Returns, one cannot jump to a conclusion that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act stand rebutted. In cases where the amount is small, the same principle may not apply. However, a huge amount of Rs.50 lakhs has to be explained or else even when such transaction is in the realm of suspicion, an imprimatur of the Court would be given if such transaction is accepted as a valid transaction. There is no gainsaying that non reflection of the loan transaction in the ITR certainly makes the loan unaccounted for, for which penalty could be imposed on the person concerned but it does not become per se unrecoverable. In thepresent case, seen along with the other facts, this lapse on the part of the petitioner assumes significance. It is thus difficult to presume that there existed a debt liability.

 Thus the judgment and the order of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are not fit to be sustained in the eyes of law.

32. There is no option for this Court but to set aside the same.

33. The petitioner stands acquitted and is discharged of all his liability.

34. The petitioner shall be released forthwith in the event of his being in custody and not required in any other case. 

ACCUSED FACING CHEQUE CASES DO HARD WORK AT TRIAL STAGE AND YOU CAN COME OUT VERY EASILY. AVOID LOUSY DEFENSE.

balwinderverma   19 September 2017

Advocate Santosh Singh please give me your mob no. My mob no. Is 8054523234

SANTOSHSINGH. (ADVOCATE sardarsena@gmail.com)     19 September 2017

please send email about your problems.

SANTOSHSINGH. (ADVOCATE sardarsena@gmail.com)     19 September 2017

accused and advocate friends you must be very careful about framaing question about cash loans and ITR other wise you dig your own grave.

You can contact us with case details for framing proper cross questions.

For example you should never ask whether cash loan is refelected in your ITR or can you submit copy of your ITR. In one case even APEX COURT  refused permission for asking copy of ITR which was permitted by even HIGH COURT.The SC said it is interlocutory order and hence no revision lies.

THE BEST QUESTION IN CASES OF CASH LOANS AND ITR PL TRY FOLLOWING:-

There is penalty of equal amount of cash loan to the borrower so why borrower will acept case loan.

SUPPLEMENTRY QUESTION :- cash loan you do not have any records or reciepts. If the loan was given by cheque than you also had a record.

SINCE NO LOAN WAS GIVEN SO YOU HAVE AVOIDED CREATING RECORDS. PL SAY YES OR NO ONLY..

IF NO EXPLAIN IT BEFORE COURT. FOR REASONS OF NO.

 

SO YOUR EVIDENCE / TESTIMONEY IS FALSE WHICH EVEN A CHILD CAN NOT BELIEVE IT.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query