Q: Write about the citation of Sri. Nagendra vs Shri. R J Rajegowda on 5 February, 2020 ?

Ans: In the case of Shri. Nagendra vs Sri. R J Rajegowda on 5 February, 2020, the complainant has stated that he approached the accused on 05.08.2010 to repay the said amount and on the same day, the accused issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.2,19,750/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only). It is not forthcoming as to what was the amount due as on 05.08.2010 towards the hand loan taken by the accused. It is also the case of the complainant that the cash was handed over to the accused in the month of January 2008 at one Siddartha Hotel in the presence of two persons viz., Mr.Sridhar and Somashekar. The said two persons are not examined by the complainant. The complainant has stated that out of the loan obtained from Co-Operative Bank, he advanced a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that he had obtained loan from Co-Operative Bank, out of which he lent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused.

The Karnataka high court held that the complainant has failed to establish that there is legally enforceable debt therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. Hence, seeks to dismiss the appeal.

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: 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

Q: What are the other illustrations of cheating?

Ans: Illustrations: 1. There are two persons A and Z. A exhibits the false sample of an article to Z and intentionally makes Z believe that the article corresponds with the sample. A here induces Z to buy and pay for the false sample of the article. A cheats Z. 2. A, by pledging as diamond articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
Read more