CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

High Court Reinstates Conviction in Cheque Dishonour Case: “Existence of Legal Liability Not in Dispute” Asserts Justice Gupta

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, has overturned an appellate court’s judgment, reinstating the conviction of an individual involved in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The case, which has seen various twists and turns, culminated in a decisive judgment pronounced on November 2, 2023. The petitioner, Girraj Sharma, had initially secured a conviction against the respondent, Devender, in the trial court. However, this conviction was later reversed by the appellate court, leading to the current appeal in the High Court.

Justice Gupta, in his ruling, emphasized the undeniable presence of a legal liability, stating, “Once the signature on the cheque was admitted by the accused in so many words... the existence of legal liability remained not in dispute at all, in view of presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.” This observation was pivotal in the court’s decision to set aside the appellate court’s judgment and restore the trial court’s conviction and sentence.

The case revolved around a cheque of ₹1,75,000, which was returned due to an incomplete signature. The High Court scrutinized the evidence and found that the appellate court’s judgment was based on conjectures and had misappreciated the facts.

Furthermore, the High Court delved into the delay in the filing of the appeal by the accused, noting that the plea taken by the accused was “absolutely not sustainable.” This formed another crucial part of the judgment as the High Court reversed the appellate court’s decision regarding the condonation of delay.

 

 Date of Decision: 02.11.2023

 GIRRAJ SHARMA VS DEVENDER             

 

Latest Legal News