Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

Absence of certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act – A curable defect - Overturns Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court of Delhi set aside a lower court’s decision, restoring a complaint in a notable cheque dishonour case. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Banerjee, highlighted the significance of proper legal procedures and the court’s approach towards procedural lapses.

In the case of Adarsh Gaur versus State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., the High Court criticized the trial court’s decision to acquit the respondent based on procedural irregularities. Justice Banerjee asserted, “Procedural defects concerning tracking reports were curable and should not have led to dismissal of the complaint,” emphasizing that such lapses are not grounds for acquittal when substantive justice is at stake.

The case revolved around the respondent’s failure to honor a cheque amounting to Rs. 80,500, which was meant for covering unpaid rent and additional charges. The trial court had previously acquitted the respondent, citing inadequacies in the legal notice and discrepancies in the postal receipts.

The High Court, however, found that the trial court overlooked crucial admissions made by the respondent about their liability. The judgment further stated, “The absence of a certificate under Section 65B cannot render the evidence inadmissible,” referring to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with electronic records.

This landmark decision is significant in the realm of cheque dishonour cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as it clarifies the importance of procedural aspects while ensuring that they do not overshadow the pursuit of justice.

The High Court has directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law, providing the appellant with an opportunity to address the procedural shortcomings.

Date - December 18, 2023

ADARSH GAUR  VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.  

 

Similar News