Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

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.  

 

Latest Legal News