Back
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Prem Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A.8441/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 374/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 459/2024
1. Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned ASJ-05 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CA. No. 123/2023.Vide aforesaid judgment, the conviction vide judgment dated 06.03.2023 and order on sentence dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned M.M have been upheld.
2. The factual position, as noticed in paragraph-2 of judgment dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court/MM may be reproduced for reference:
"2. The present complaint alleges, inter alia, that complainant and accused were having good terms with each other. In the 1st week of November, 2020- accused approached the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for the marriage of his son and represented that he would return the loan amount to the complainant before 20.04.2021. On this, complainant gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused on 09.11.2020 in cash and the accused assured to return Rs.2,00,000/- before 2004.2
The main legal point established is that under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, there is a presumption that a cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability, and the burden is on the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption of debt under Section 139 N.I. Act is rebuttable; the accused must raise a probable defense regarding financial capacity to affirm the legitimacy of the cheque issued.
The court upheld the acquittal as the complainant failed to prove the loan's existence or that the cheque was issued for legitimate debt, emphasizing the rebuttable nature of presumptions under the N....
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defense regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt, which must be su....
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
