Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Petition in Cheque Dishonour Case

03 September 2024 10:09 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sudhir Mittal, dismissed a revision petition filed in a cheque dishonour case. The petitioner, Aman Goyal, had challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The complaint against the petitioner alleged that he induced the complainant to invest a sum of Rs. 2 crores in a business venture, promising returns if the project did not commence by a specified date. However, the cheque issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2.33 crores, including interest, was dishonoured, leading to the complaint.

After considering the evidence presented, both the trial court and the appellate court had returned concurrent findings, concluding that the cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable liability, and the payment of Rs. 2 crores had been proven. The defense's claim that the complainant fraudulently obtained the petitioner's cheque book by forging his application was disbelieved, as other cheques from the same cheque book were issued and honoured.

Justice Sudhir Mittal, in the judgment, highlighted that the forensic examination of the disputed cheque had confirmed the genuineness of the petitioner's signature. This finding, coupled with the testimony of the witness from the bank and the absence of evidence to support the defense's claim, led the court to uphold the presumption in favor of the complainant under Section 139 of the Act. The court further noted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were distinguishable on their facts.

Court held that the revision petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence was therefore unsuccessful.

Date: April 25, 2023

Aman Goyal  Versus  Aneet Goel 

Latest Legal News