Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Ma Kreeng Construction Pvt.Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dipak Saha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short Cr.P.C.) praying to set aside the judgment and order dated July 28, 2017 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-II, Calcutta in Criminal Revision Case No. 40 of 2017.
2. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Learned Judge affirmed the judgment and order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Calcutta in Complaint Case No. 3924 of 2009 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short N.I. Act) whereby and whereunder the petitioners were convicted for offences punishable under of the N.I. Act. Consequently, Petitioner no. 1/Ma Kreeng Construction Pvt. Ltd. was sentenced to pay a compensation of an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the complainant within one month from the date of judgment, in default, the complainant will have the liberty to take appropriate legal steps against the convict company/petitioner no. 1. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for
The court upheld the convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, affirming that dishonour of a cheque creates a statutory presumption of liability, which the accused failed to re....
Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act affirmed, emphasizing the necessity of due process in criminal trials and the validity of a Magistrate's authority.
The court affirmed that changes in a complainant company's name do not invalidate pending legal actions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited t....
A cheque issued as security can be subjected to Section 138 liabilities; presumption under Section 139 requires the accused to establish a probable defence for avoidance of conviction.
Failure to raise probable defence on preponderance of probabilities fails to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act; security cheques towards loan liability attract Section 138 upon dishonour.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid unless a credible defense is presented, and dishonor of a cheque issued as security can lead to conviction un....
A presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque exists under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the accused to rebut it with a probable defense.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies, placing the burden of proof on the accused to establish a probable defence against dishonour of a cheque.
Presumption under NI Act ss.118,139 rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities by probable defence; accused's unproved allegation of cheque amount misuse fails rebuttal. Revision jurisdiction limit....
Failure to rebut presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act by proving probable defence results in conviction under Section 138 for cheque dishonour, even if claimed as security; revisional jur....
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
