Showing : 1-10 of 18 Results

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2014
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Quashing of complaint - Law as to : (a) Once in a complaint filed u/s 138 r/w S.141 of the NI Act the basic averment is made that the Director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 105, 105-- Dishonour of cheque - Execution of non bailable warrants against a person living in United States - All steps taken to procure presence of accused failed - Procedure resorted to u/ss 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. and non bailable warrants issued - Accused living in United States - Execution of warrants -..........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 88-- Dishonour of cheque - Presence of accused - Magistrate has power to direct accused to execute bond with sureties so as to ensure his appearance for the future hearings...........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 256(1)-- Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal of accused u/s 256(1) Cr.P.C. - Magistrate Courts acquit the accused even at the fag end of the case, giving untenable reasons, such as it is a long pending case and it is included in the target; the complainant is not adducing evidence despite repeated directions;..........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 70(2), 71-- Dishonour of cheque - Absence of accused - Issuance of non bailable warrants - Accused regularly attended trial from 17.07.2004 to 27.07.2007 - On 27.07.2007 accused had to go to Jaipur all of a sudden without seeking exemption of appearance from the court - As such petitioner could not attend..........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Dishonour of cheque - No document to show loan - Persons in whose presence loan was given not examined - Evidence of PW2 inconsistent and contradictory - Cheques were given as part repayment of purchase money of the shop - Complainant had no financial capacity to advance loan - Defence probable -..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 205(2)-- Dishonour of cheque - Summons issued dispensing with personal attendance of accused - If accused is acquitted or accused is convicted and sentenced with a fine only then it is not necessary to insist on personal presence of accused to receive judgment - However, if sentence is one of substantive..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 256-- Dishonour of cheque - Absence of complainant - Mere absence of a complainant does not entail consequences u/s 256 Cr.P.C. - Presence of complainant can only be insisted if progress of the case demands such appearance - On all other dates from the date of filing of complaint to date of judgment he..........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Plea of returning amount in presence of two witnesses - These two witnesses not examined - Complainant not cross examined regarding repayments - Story of repayment came for first time in statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - Case of accused..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 256, 311, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Dishonour of cheque - Complaint at the stage of defence evidence - Complaint at that stage cannot be dismissed for non appearance of complainant - If complainant does not cross examine defence evidence then complainant would do so at his peril but it cannot be said that presence of complainant was..........

Showing : 1-10 of 18 Results