Q: Describe the citation of Raj Kumar & Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs Hans Raj on 17 March, 2015 ?

Ans: Raj Kumar & Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs Hans Raj on 17 March, 2015


In the case of Raj Kumar & Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs Hans Raj on 17 March, 2015, the complainant has a private registered company. The company must be maintaining its accounts as per the accounting standards, but no account books were produced by the complainant company to prove that the complainant's company gave an amount of Rs.30 Lacs to the accused on 04.06.10. If the complainant had given the loan of Rs.30 Lacs to the accused, it must have been shown the same in the account books i.e. Balance Sheet for the year 2006 up to till date. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn u/s 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act that account books are unfavourable to the complainant.
The accused had been able to establish that the complainant had filed the complaint on a false factual basis by claiming that the cheque in question had been issued simultaneously while issuing the receipt Ex. CW-1/1 dated 04.02.2006. The aforesaid facts and circumstances completely demolish the complaint of the petitioner.
The Delhi High Court held that when the accused had been able to establish that complainant had filed the complaint on a false factual basis , the acquittal is just and proper.
x

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: What is the significance of issuing account payee cheque?

Ans: While issuing the cheque, a drawer should draw two parallel lines on its left side and should write 'account only' in between them. By doing this, the cheque becomes an account payee cheque and the payment will be made only in the bank account of the payee. In case of any type of fraud, the payee can be traced. Having the above- mentioned precautions, a drawer can be avoided from fraud to a great extent.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia on 22 September, 2000 ?

Ans:  Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia on 22 September, 2000. The Kerela High Court held that Section 138 of negotiable instrument act is attracted only if there is legally recoverable debt and it can not be said that the time barred debt is legally enforceable debt. For the reasons stated above, the Kerela High Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.  The Kerela High Court sees no infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court. This appeal is groundless and is liable to be dismissed.
Read more

Q: How would section 208, 209 and 210 of IPC be implemented in dishonour of cheque ?

Ans: A and B collude together and A issues the cheque for X Amount, which gets dishonored.  B files the complaint under S.138, and without proving the liability gets the benefit of presumption under S.139, now both A and B enact the drama of compounding under S.147 of NI Act, matter closed, but in principle A has violated IPC S.208 and S.210 and B has violated IPC S.209. So, if rightly B is asked to prove the entitlement to become the holder, before presumption can be granted to him, surely he would fail and lawfully both A and B can be prosecuted under IPC S.208, S.209 and S.210 if required.
Read more