Back
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Bijon Kumar Paul – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.—By the present revisional application, the petitioner/accused challenged the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court at Calcutta in connection with G.R. Case No. 17/2014 arising out of Park Street Police Station Case No. 05/2014 dated 2nd January, 2014 under Sections 406/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code thereby the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner from the said proceeding.
2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts of the instant case are as under: -
2a. In the year 2007, the petitioner entered into an agreement for hypothecation of a vehicle (ALTO/LXi) by availing loan amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- from the ICICI Bank Limited with terms and conditions that the petitioner shall re-pay in equal monthly instalments till final payments of principal and interest accrued therein. The said vehicle remained in the possession of the petitioner for his use. subsequently vide deed of assignment dated 31.12.2007, the said ICICI Bank assigned the loans/debts payable by the petitioner to the M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, opposite party no. 2 herein. The vehicle in question being registration No
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of double jeopardy was not applicable due to the differences in the ingredients of the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and S....
Judicial Decorum – Judicial decorum demands that if judgments passed by two-Judges’ Bench of equal strength are conflicting, issue of law involved must be referred to a larger Bench as the same is de....
The court distinguished between offences under S.138 and S.420, affirming that acquittal in one does not bar prosecution in the other due to differing legal elements.
Distinct offences under the IPC and NIA can coexist, and concurrent prosecutions do not violate the double jeopardy principle under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
: Offences under Section 138 of NI Act and Section 420 of IPC are distinct from each other and principle of double jeopardy or rule of estoppel does not come into play.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
In hypothecation, ownership remains with the debtor; thus, criminal breach of trust is not established unless property is entrusted. Cheating requires fraudulent intent at the time of inducement, whi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
