Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shalinder Kaur
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
Shalinder Kaur, J.
CRL. M.A. 9720/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL. A. 405/2025, CRL. M.A. 9721/2025
3. This is a fresh criminal appeal under Section 415 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 528 of BNSS assailing the Judgment dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CA No.53/2024 titled as Rajesh Kumar vs. Om Prakash & Anr. whereby the appeal against the Judgment convicting the appellant dated 29.01.2024 and Order on sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipal), East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No.1840/2017, was dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had taken a friendly loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent no.2 in May, 2016, being an acquaintance. He had issued two cheques as security to the respondent no.2 which the latter presented after filling the cheques for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- each and which on presentation were dishonored. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N
The court emphasized the importance of notice and evidence in cases of cheque dishonor, allowing for the suspension of sentence pending appeal.
The trial court's failure to properly appreciate evidence warrants reconsideration of the acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act.
A signed cheque creates a statutory presumption of liability under Section 139 of the NI Act, which the accused must rebut to avoid conviction.
The purpose of issuing a statutory notice is to put the accused on notice of the dishonored cheque, and the acceptance of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not permissible.
A cheque issued as security can be presented for payment if the loan is not repaid within the stipulated time, affirming liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be drawn in favor of the holder of the cheque, and misinterpretation of evidence by the Trial Court warrants leave to appeal.
The trial Court's dismissal of a cheque dishonor case due to non-prosecution was erroneous as it failed to appreciate the evidence, warranting leave to appeal.
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
