Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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