Back
SANJAY VASHISTH
Mohanbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Hari Parkash Gimra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding presumption of innocence (Para 6) |
| 2. issues of maintainability and representation in cheques (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. insufficient evidence for conviction (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. dismissal of appeals based on lack of legal grounds (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)
By this judgment, two appeals, i.e. CRA-S-3385-SB-2012 and CRA-S-3386-SB of 2012, filed by same appellant, namely, Mohanbir Singh (hereafter referred to as, 'the complainant'), are being decided together, inasmuch as, parties in both the appeals are same, and the finding of acquittal has been recorded by the learned Trial Court after dealing with & analyzing same set of evidence, vide impugned judgment(s) dated 06.04.2012.
Facts Of CRA-S-3385-SB-2012:
2(i). In this appeal, the complainant has challenged the judgment dated 06.04.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana/ Trial Court, in Criminal Case No. 368/2, dated 30.08.2008, titled as 'Mohanbir Singh v. Hari Parkash Gimra', vide which respondent- Hari Parkash Gimra, was acquitted in a complaint case filed by the complainant, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 120 IPC, a
Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act based on reliable forensic evidence disproving accused's signature on cheque, as presumption under Sections 118 and 139 re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence and the principles for interference in an appeal against acquittal.
Point of Law : When the accused was under financial constraints, the loan was taken and not disputed the fact that the cheque was given in 2004. Though contended that date of cheque has not been ment....
In appeals against acquittal under NI Act s.138, High Court interferes only if perverse, misreads evidence, or sole guilt view possible; reasonable defence rebutting presumption warrants upholding ac....
In an appeal against acquittal, the prosecution must demonstrate a legally enforceable debt; an accused's acquittal will not be disturbed unless clear illegality or absurdity is shown.
Point of Law : Presumption Under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of p....
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
