About Me

My photo


Wednesday, April 22, 2015

or.3, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C ; Sec.139 of N.I.Act

Or.3, rule 1 and  2 C.P.C - Power of attorney holder -  since the Power of attorney holder and principal both were examined - he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him - not arise ;
Sec.139 of N.I.Act - Presumption -when the holder of the cheque establishes that he legally received the cheque from the drawer, the presumption under Section 139 follows to the effect that there existed a legally enforceable debt between the parties and cheque was
issued for discharge of said debt.
Burden lies on Accused - If it is the case of the accused that Exs.P2 to
P10 and some other cheques were issued by her as security in the year 1998 
but not in 2004, she could have elicited the originating year of those cheques
through PW3. Surprisingly, no suggestion was given to PW3 nor the accused 
took steps to refer the cheque numbers of Exs.P2 to P10 to UBI, Adilabad to
find out the year of issuance of those cheques. Such exercise would have
strengthened her version. ; - 2015 TELANGANA & A.P. msklawreports

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.