I am submitting the following two facts/cases in connection with the earlier one..(1) In a case for zimma of a vehicle I was engaged by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Company Ltd. Issue was that A purchased the vehicle from MMFC Ltd under Higher Purchase agreement. But before paying the entire loan installments A by executing an agreement with B handed over the possession of the vehicle to B with conditions that B will repay the remaining loan installments and B will be responsible for anything if happen in connection with the vehicle. B was paying loan installment to A and A delivered Photostat copy of money receipt( drawn in the name of A) of MMFC Ltd to B. But those money receipt were fake and no such money of B was deposited by A in MMFC Ltd. MMFC Ltd lodged a FIR stating that A has lapsed many loan installment, so the vehicle may be seized and zimma should be given to the comp. In Court B claimed for zimma stating all the facts and submitted the agreement executed with A. I on behalf of the MMFC Ltd submitted a petition for zimma. I submitted one another petition stating that as the vehicle was purchased by A under Hire Purchased agreement and loan is not paid to the full amount so the agreement executed between A and B is null and void and B has no right to claim for zimma and B can not be a party. But the magistrate told me that my submission regarding admissibility of the agreement is fit in civil case, but in CRIMINAL CASE FACTS CAN NOT BE DENIED. Later on by submitting a High Court ruling regarding true ownership and zimma I ( MMFC Ltd) got the zimma of the vehicle. (2) Now in a case u/s 138 NI Act I am engaged by the accused. Facts is that accused issued one cheque of Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant. But before presenting the cheque in bank the accused paid the cheque amount to the complainant accepting a written declaration from the complainant to the effect of money receipt, but signatures were put haphazardly by the complainant, accused and witnesses and the declaration was written in a plain paper. Later on complainant did not delivered the cheque to the accused as per his promise made in the declaration. Accused wrote a latter to the bank for stop payment. Complainant deposited the cheque in bank and bank returned the cheque stating FUND INSUFFICIENT, while it should have been STOP BY DRAWER as the accused informed in writing to bank before presentation of the cheque. Now prosecution is trying to prove that the declaration paper is inadmissible due to procedural defect. Now my question is though the declaration may not be admissible but it is in civil case, as this one is a criminal case so the acknowledgement made by the complainant in the declaration that he received the cheque amount can not be denied as in CRIMINAL CASE FACTS CAN NOT BE DENIED. Whether it is correct or not? If this is the state of evidence is there any Supreme court ruling? Again I would like to ask another question. In cheque returning memo Bank has given reason Fund Insufficient while it should have been Stop by Drawer. I have exhibited the declaration and the letter written to the bank by the accused. Now after the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court “RAJ KUMAR KHURANA-V- STATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR” can I go to High Court to squash the proceeding on the ground that cheque returning memo must be for PAYMENT STOP BY DRAWER and after this judgement of SC offence does not come under section 138 NI Act?