Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ravi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Shakti Cholia – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 04.10.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una. It has been asserted that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N I Act). The petitioner filed anapplication under Section 94 read with Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for tendering in evidence a certified copy of the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 342 & 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Learned counsel for the respondent had cross-examined the petitioner about his complaint. The document is relevant and necessary to decide the dispute. The complaint mentions that the respondent and her associates had obtained the cheque forcibly. The petitioner wanted to tender the certified copy of the complaint, which is per se admissible, and no witness was required to be summoned to prove the complaint. No prejudice would be caused to the other side. The learned Trial Court
An order dismissing an application for additional evidence is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The judgment establishes that the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is a reverse onus incumbent on the accused, who must provide evidence to counter it.
Computer-generated cheque return memo without bank seal or signatures fails to attract presumption of dishonour; prosecution must prove insufficient funds via proper evidence from relevant bank.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to accept or reject additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and may consider conflicting expert opinions in....
NI Act s.138 complaint premature if filed before 15 days from 30-day deemed service of notice via registered post without proof; computer-generated dishonour memos without seal/signature/65B certific....
The court clarified that an order allowing expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is an intermediate order affecting rights, not merely interlocutory, and the court cannot collect eviden....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition against filing a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 CrPC, as well as the need for expeditious disposal of cases....
Dishonour of cheque – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal.
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
