[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]Lekh_Raj_Sharma_vs_Yash_Pal_Gupta_on_30_June_2015

Lekh Raj Sharma vs Yash Pal Gupta CRL-LP 567/14 [ Vipin Sanghi JJ ]

NI ACT Section 138 r/w Section 139 Criminal Trial Dishonour of Cheque Presumption Presumption qua issuance of chque for consideration, based upon Pronote Failure of accused respondent to rebut the presumption Not only, there appeared contradiction in statements of respondent accused and DW-1 qua amount returned to complainant, but also testimony of DW-1 found to be unbelievable Accused respondent shield away from facing cross examination This factor discredits the defence If cheque purportedly handed over to complainant-appellant in blank, purpose was to enable appellant to encash it, in the event loan was not repaid Thus, there was an implied authority to complainant appellant to fill up cheque and encash it Once pronote has been signed and executed by respondent admittedly, it acts as an acknowledgement of transaction It is in dark as to why two pronotes had been executed in blank Rejecting all pleas, impugned order set-aside Ordered accordingly. [Paras 2 to 5, 15, 19 to 22, 26 & 27]

file:///C:/Users/admin/Documents/Downloads/Lekh_Raj_Sharma_vs_Yash_Pal_Gupta_on_30_June_2015.PDF