SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Ashok Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
1. The present appeal impugns the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2024 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 619 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’)1 [2024:AHC-LKO:15310] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) allowing the petition and setting aside the concurrent findings of guilt and conviction recorded against respondent no. 2 (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘accused’) in the Order dated 12.04.2019 in Complaint Case No. 6650/2012 passed by the Presiding Officer/Additional Court, Room No. 5, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) as later upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’) vide Order dated 23.10.2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 148/2019.
FACTS:
2. The appellant is the complainant in Complaint Case No. 6650/2012. He alleged that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 22,00,000/- (Twenty-Two lakhs) to the respondent no. 2 on the assurance that the entire amount will be returned. When the appellant demanded return of the money, the accused issued Cheque No. 726716 dated
Uttam Ram vs. Devinder Singh Hudan
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde
G. Pankajakshi Amma vs. Mathai Mathew (Dead) through LRs. (2004) 12 SCC 83 [Para 11] – Referred.
Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited
Aparna A. Shah vs. Sheth Developers Private Limited
Sunita Palita vs. Panchami Stone Quarry
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla
Pooja Ravinder Devidasani vs. State of Maharashtra
Dishonour of cheque – Onus is not on complainant at threshold to prove his capacity/financial wherewithal – Only if objection is raised that complainant was not in a financial position to pay amount ....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity. NI Act presumptions u/ss 118,139 arise on cheque admission; accused must rebut with evidence. No initial complainant ....
Point of Law : Jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice.
Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act arise on implicit admission of cheque issuance via cross-examination; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial; revisional jurisdiction limi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.