Back
T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH
Bogan Oza – Appellant
Versus
Lalitya Kumar Das – Respondent
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.— By this appeal, the appellant- complainant is assailing the judgment and order dated 7.9.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Dhakuakhana passed in Case No. C.R. 306/2005, wherein and whereunder, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) held that the appellant complainant had failed to prove that the respondent-opposite party had committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NIA.1881).
2. Heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant complainant as well as Mr. P.J .Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent opposite party.
3. The factual panorama of the appellant complainant’s case in his complaint dated 19.10.2005 being Case No C.R.306/2005 against the respondent opposite party under Section 138 of the NIA,1881 is briefly recapitulated.
The appellant complainant Sri Bogan Oza sold his plot of land measuring four kathas covered by Dag No.1152 of Patta No.110 of Dhakuakhana Mouza at Konwar Ghahi gaon map for Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent opposite party Sri Lalitya Das under the sale agreement dated 23.11.2002 between the appell
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The list primarily contains statements of legal principles, observations, or clarifications without references to subsequent negative treatment or judicial disapproval. Therefore, based on the provided information, there are no cases clearly identified as bad law.
Followed/Authoritative Principles:
Kumar Exports VS Sharma Carpets - 2009 1 Supreme 231: States that only the Appellate Court can impose the appropriate sentence when reversing an acquittal. This appears to be a standard legal principle rather than a case treatment, with no indication of subsequent disapproval.
Musaraf Hossain Khan VS Bhagheeratha Engg. LTD. - 2006 2 Supreme 681: Clarifies jurisdictional principles regarding High Court's authority under Article 227 of the Constitution. No indication of negative treatment.
K. Bhaskaran VS Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan - 1999 8 Supreme 608: Explains the concatenation of acts necessary for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The language suggests it is stating a settled legal position, not indicating disapproval or overrule.
Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacture Company LTD. VS Amin Chand Payrelal - 1999 2 Supreme 187: Describes the presumption under Section 118(a) and the burden of proof. It appears to be an authoritative statement, not a case that has been overruled.
Modi Cements VS Kuchil Kumar Nandi - 1998 2 Supreme 471: Details the presumption under Section 139 and clarifies misconceptions about stoppage notices, indicating the current legal understanding without suggesting it has been overruled or criticized.
Shamshad Begum VS B. Mohammed - 2008 7 Supreme 529: Emphasizes that all acts need not be done in the same locality for offence completion, a clarification or restatement of existing law.
Legal Clarifications/Explanations:
M. S. Narayana Menon @ Mani VS State Of Kerala - 2006 5 Supreme 547: Discusses the standard of proof needed for rebutting presumption under Section 139 r/w 118. It appears to be an explanatory statement, not a case treatment.
Electronics Trade And Technology Development Corporation LTD. , Secunderabad VS Indian Technologists And Engineers (Electronics) Private LTD. - 1996 1 Supreme 744: Explains what constitutes dishonour of cheque with specific endorsements. No indication of subsequent negative treatment.
Musaraf Hossain Khan VS Bhagheeratha Engg. LTD. - 2006 2 Supreme 681: Jurisdictional point, not a case treatment.
K. Bhaskaran VS Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan - 1999 8 Supreme 608: Details the acts constituting the offence, not a treatment.
Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacture Company LTD. VS Amin Chand Payrelal - 1999 2 Supreme 187: Explains the presumption under Section 118(a), not a treatment.
Modi Cements VS Kuchil Kumar Nandi - 1998 2 Supreme 471: Clarifies presumption under Section 139, not a treatment.
Shamshad Begum VS B. Mohammed - 2008 7 Supreme 529: Restates the acts for offence completion, not a treatment.
Uncertain Cases:
All cases appear to be statements of law, principles, or clarifications without explicit references to subsequent judicial treatment. There are no clear indicators such as "overruled," "reversed," or "criticized" in the provided descriptions. Therefore, no cases are categorized as uncertain regarding their treatment.
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
