This single-line order grants leave for an application by a petitioner/complainant challenging an acquittal of a respondent/accused in a cheque dishonour case, noting that leave is granted based on a prima facie case being made out.
Leave granted for the criminal appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.26068 of 2021
Crl.O.P.No.26068 of 2021 in Crl.A.SR.No.33782 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
(This case has been heard through Video conference)
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant would submit that the respondent/accused had not denied the issuance of the cheque and the signature and he has also not sent reply notice to the statutory notice issued by the petitioner/complainant. He would further submit that the Trial court, without taking into consideration the provisions regarding the statutory presumptions available under Section 118 and 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, had shifted the burden on the petitioner/complainant and had acquitted the accused. He would submit that the respondent/accused had not rebutted the presumptions, whereas, the Trial Court had found that the petitioner had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts.
Crl.O.P.No.26068 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
ham
record, this Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out for grant of leave.
06.01.2022
ham
Note: Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.
Crl.O.P.No.26068 of 2021 in Crl.A.SR.No.33782 of 2021
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a prima facie case is made out for granting leave in the current application.
Whether the impugned order should be accepted for leave to appeal.
Petitioner/Complainant
Respondent/Accused
AD.Jagadish Chandira, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
