Back
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
In the Matter of: Prahald Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, in Crl. Appeal No. 194/2017. The Additional Session Judge by the impugned judgment affirmed the order dated 29.06.2017, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter referred as “The NI Act”) and the Order on sentence dated 17.10.2017 directing the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- and in default the petitioner herein has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. On 01.11.2019, the counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner, who was present in person, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to settle the disputes with respondent No. 2. It was agreed that the petitioner will make the payment of Rs. 1,70,000/- to respondent No. 2 in four monthly instalments. The first three instalments of Rs. 50,000/- each were to be paid on or before 01.12.2019, 01.01.2020 and 01.02.2020
The revisional power of court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perver....
The petitioner's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and the abuse of indulgence granted by the court amounted to contempt.
The main legal point established is that the Appellate Court cannot enhance the sentence by ordering compensation in the absence of an appeal by the complainant.
It has been settled in law that accused can either adduce independent evidence or rely on evidence tendered by complainant to rebut presumptions.
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption of debt under NI Act ss118(a),139; accused's lost cheque plea fails without bank report; revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, upholding conc....
Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence absent perversity; NI Act presumption u/s 139 rebuttable by preponderance of probabilities, accused's uncorroborated denial insufficient; notice returne....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no interference with concurrent conviction under NI Act S.138 absent perversity; presumption of debt under S.139 holds on signature admission unless rebutted by proba....
The burden of proof shifts to the complainant once the accused discharges the initial burden of proof, and the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act disappears.
Admission of cheque issuance triggers Section 139 presumption of debt discharge, rebuttable only by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; uncorroborated security claim fails rebuttal; r....
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
