Dishonouring of cheque

The factual controversy as to whether the appli-cant acted with fraudulent intent from the inception or whether the dispute had evolved into a civil liability was a matter which could only be deter-mined after recording of evidence at trial

Where a transaction gives rise to both civil and criminal liability, the element of fraudulent intention must be determined on the basis of evidence, and until such determination, the matter may fall within the scope of further inquiry

Record reflected that a civil suit filed by the applicant with respect to the same subject cheque(s) was also pending adjudication against the complainant

It was also claimed by the applicant that during course of their business transactions the claimed amounts had been repaid by him, which was also required to be considered during trial

All said facts brought the case of the applicant within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged under S497(2) Cr.P.C

The maximum punishment for offence under S.489-F P.P.C. is three years which does not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C, thereby entitling the applicant to bail

Every transaction where a cheque is dishonoured would not constitute an offense in the absence of dishonesty

The foundational elements to constitute an offence under section 489-F are the issuance of cheque with dishonest intent, and the issuance of cheque towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of an obligation

Where there was business relationship between the parties and the cheques mentioned in the FIR were issued as surety or guarantee, the same fell short of the requirements of an obligation within the meaning of S.489-F P.P.C, thus, calling for further enquiry

Where cheque was given as a security, the elements of section 489-F P.P.C. were not attracted and bail was to be granted

Where a civil suit for declaration with respect to the subject transaction was pending adjudication before the court of competent jurisdiction, the possibility of ulterior motives could not be ruled out

A case where there was business relationship between the parties and the allegation of dishonour of cheque under S.489-F P.P.C. was levelled, the provision of S.489-F P.P.C. were not intended by the legislature to be used for recovery of an alleged amount but civil proceedings provided remedies inter alia under O.XXXVII, C.P.C

The question whether the cheques were issued towards repayment of loan or fulfilment of an obligation within the meaning of section 489-F, was held to be a question which should be resolved by the Trial Court after recording evidence

Mere registration of other criminal cases (i.e. multiple FIRs) against an accused did not disentitle him from the grant of bail

Present matter appeared to be a clear case of multiple civil transactions between the parties wherein not only a summary suit but insolvency petition had also been filed and certain orders had also been filed, whereas versions of both sides and determination of final liability was yet to be made, which made it a case of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. and entitled the applicant to bail

Interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant was confirmed under circumstances.

Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and pre-conviction detention should be used only to secure attendance

Right to life and liberty is guaranteed under Art.4 of the Constitution

Offence under S.489-F is punishable up to 3 years, which does not warrant pre-trial detention under S.497, Cr.P.C.

Applicant had been regularly appearing before the Trial Court and had not frustrated the proceedings

Complainant's failure to attend court proceedings suggested a lack of interest in pursuing the case, thus, refusal of bail would not serve any useful purpose, rather there was serious apprehension of humiliation and harassment of the applicant at the hands of police

Disputed amount as per alleged cheque was a meager one

It was yet to be determined by the Trial Court whether an offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., was constituted or otherwise

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused was confirmed, in circumstances.

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Mere issuance of cheque which was subsequently dishonoured does not constitute an offence unless it is established that the same was issued with dishonest intention for repayment of loan or for discharging of any obligations.

Section 489-F, P.P.C. applied where cheque was issued dishonestly towards re-payment of loan or fulfilment of obligation

In the present case, cheques were neither issued by accused persons nor signed by them, as such case did not fall within the ambit of S. 489-F, P.P.C.

Accused persons were rightly acquitted

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

In suit for recovery of money on the basis of dishonoured cheques petitioners /defendants were refused leave to appear and defend the suit by Trial Court

Plea raised by petitioners / defendants was that amount of cheques was already paid to respondent / plaintiff on different occasions

Validity

Petitioners / defendants admitted issuance of cheques and dishonouring from bank

Defence that amount had been paid in different installments to respondent / plaintiff was imaginary and illusionary as petitioners / defendants did not mention any time / date / mode of payment etc.

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as the same was neither without jurisdiction, nor mala fide, void or coram non judice

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court for issuing a cheque which was dishonoured on presentation

Validity

Date of occurrence mentioned in FIR was 16-06-2006 whereas date of registration of FIR was 11-05-2009, there was no plausible explanation for reporting of the matter to police after an inordinate delay of about three years

Civil suit filed by complainant under O.XXXVII C.P.C. was dismissed by Trial Court

High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction in terms of S.435, Cr.P.C. had to examine record for the purpose of satisfying its conscious to check correctness, legality or propriety of any findings / sentence passed by Courts below

Duty conferred upon High Court on its revisional side compelled it to reprise the entire evidence on the touchstone of principle of fair trial as referred in Art.10-A of the Constitution if Lower Appellate Court in disposing of appeal had not discussed evidence at all

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by two Courts below and accused was acquitted of the charge, as prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner/accused sought quashing of second FIR for dishonour of second cheque issued during same transaction for which earlier one FIR had already been registered

Validity

Held, second FIR could not be registered in cases of same transaction like cheques of same series originating on same cause of action, whether dishonoured or not or subsequently dishonoured after registration of first FIR

If second FIR was lodged the same should be cancelled by referring subsequent cheques through supplementary challan in first FIR/case

If second FIR was not registered and matter was pending before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, who was dealing with the case, he could pass order/direction under S.22-A (6), Cr.P.C. to investigating officer of the first case, who had already registered the FIR or had submitted final report under S.173, Cr.P.C., to file supplementary challan in that first case on the basis of such new facts of cognizable offence emanating from the same incident / transaction like dishonoured cheque

If police officer had also registered second FIR, he could convert final report in terms of S.173, Cr.P.C. as supplementary report of first FIR while considering offence of same transaction, must submit supplementary challan in the same court without recourse to arrest of accused

Where different dishonoured cheques were still with complainant, which had not been used against same accused originating from same transaction and series of cheques, which were basis of first FIR, in such situation no further F.I.R. could be registered and police officer should not proceed in those cases, rather should refer the parties to Court of competent jurisdiction under the law by way of filing of civil suit for recovery

Officer incharge of police station should not entertain every such application of subsequent dishonoured cheque of same accused by facilitating complainant as helping in or becoming tool of recovery

Police officers were duty bound to refer the parties to Court of competent jurisdiction or directed the matter to concerned police station for recording of entire complaint in police diary with reasons that already FIR has been lodged and complainant did not disclose other cheques of same transaction due to his ill-will and mala fide

If trial of first FIR was already concluded then police officer should not register second FIR in any manner of the same transaction or series of offences which had already been adjudicated upon the basis of same set of allegations

High Court quashed second FIR as the same was abuse of process and complainant had right to recourse to remedy of recovery provided under law

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused submitted affidavit stating that he was ready to pay the amount of cheque by certain date and in case of his failure in dishonouring his commitment, he would not be entitled to enjoy the right of bail

Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., being cognizable and compoundable, considering the compounding character of offence, court seized with bail application, may extend concession of bail

If the accused did not honour his commitment in terms of compromise accused would lose his right to enjoy concession of bail

Bail was granted accordingly.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for issuing a cheque which was dishonoured on presentation and he was sentenced to imprisonment for three years

Conviction and sentence was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Accused was unaware of the art of cross-examination and testimony of witnesses could not be tested properly

Testing the veracity and credibility of witnesses was a legal right of accused which could be achieved through proper cross-examination

High Court had issued direction for conclusion of trial but spirit of the order was meant only for a speedy conclusion of trial and not to deprive accused of his right of fair trial

Time could have been requested and extended in the interest of justice

Rights of accused persons were guaranteed under the Constitution and the very right of cross examination by counsel for proper defending was infringed

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Issuance of cheque was to be with dishonest intention; purpose of issuance of cheque should be to repay a loan or to fulfil the obligation which was to be dishonoured on presentation.

Before filing appeal, appellant never complained before the executing court regarding the alleged coercion, pressure or undue force against the respondent despite the fact that he was duly represented by his counsel

Appellant had concealed the material facts regarding his active participation before the executing court

Appeal, being bereft of merits, was dismissed.

Case of the complainant was based upon documentary evidence which was in possession of the prosecution, therefore, no question arose for the tampering with the evidence at the hands of the petitioner

Prosecution case was based upon the evidence of complainant and the witnesses who belonged to police, therefore, their evidence was required to be scrutinized minutely at the time of trial as to whether the offence had occurred in the manner as stated in FIR or otherwise

Co-accused (wife of the petitioner) had already been granted bail by the Trial Court almost on same facts and grounds, therefore, following the rule of consistency the petitioner was also entitled to the same relief

Admittedly, petitioner had filed civil suit for the cancellation of cheque which was pending for adjudication

Petitioner was behind the bars since his arrest

No substantial progress in trial had been made so far

Petitioner was previously non-convict and was not desperate, dangerous or hardened criminal

Case of the petitioner called for further inquiry

Sentence provided for the offence (489-F, P.P.C.) was three years or fine

Adequate punishment in shape of fine was also available in the said provision

Sentence did not come within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Having made out a case for grant of bail, petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Petitioner contended that civil litigation was pending between the parties on several business transactions and cheque was issued as security and not for encashment

Validity

As to the fact that under what circumstances dishonored cheque was issued was a question of further inquiry

Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. was punishable for three years or fine or both and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.

Complainant had alleged that accused issued a cheque for Rs. 41,26,089 to him in the backdrop of his admission to have stolen certain articles from the mills which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds

Disputed cheque had been issued by the accused merely as a guarantee which could be used against him for a future liability

No liability existed on the day of issuance of the cheque to the complainant

Such nature of instrument was somewhat alien to the requirement of S. 489-F, P.P.C. as the same did not give coverage to a liability likely to occur in future

Disputed cheque had already been dishonoured by the Bank on 21.07.2015 but complainant lodged FIR against the accused on 16.09.2015 which showed an element of malice on his part

Pronote allegedly executed by the accused in favour of the complainant showed that accused was loanee of same amount as mentioned in FIR and in the disputed cheque which meant that effect of said instrument was not clear as regards the FIR itself

Probability could not be ruled out that accused might have been falsely involved in the case due to some malice or ulterior motives of complainant

Ad interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed accordingly.

Accused was habitual money squeezer as per allegation and had repeated offence so was connected with commission of offence

Case of accused had come within the exceptions despite the fact the offence did not come under the prohibitory clause

Accused was not entitled for concession of bail and two courts below had rightly exercised their discretion by refusing relief of bail

Bail was refused in circumstances.

Cheque in question was issued by appellant in the backdrop of settlement arrived at between parties in terms of agreement in a criminal case registered under S. 489-F, P.P.C.

Ex-officio Justice of Peace passed a direction for registration of FIR against appellant as cheque issued by him was dishonoured

Order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace was maintained by Single Judge of High Court

Validity

Cheque in question was given in terms of agreement and it was not issued to create any liability as alleged in application for registration of case

Dishonour of such cheque did not make out offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C.

Just to settle disputes with father of appellant, respondent moved frivolous application by way of concealing real facts and by doing so it was axiomatic that respondent did not approach court with clean hands

Respondent knocked the doors of Ex-officio Justice of Peace with mala fide intention and with ulterior motive in order to involve appellant in criminal proceedings to resolve some private vengeance

Division Bench of High Court set aside the orders passed by Single Judge High Court and that of Ex-officio Justice of Peace

Intra court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

False implication of accused could not be ruled out and matter required further inquiry and the same was rightly considered by Trial Court while confirming bail to accused

No sufficient materials and grounds were raised nor any illegality pointed out in the order to seek cancellation of bail which prima facie was prerogative and discretion of Trial Court deciding a bail application in accordance with law

Grounds and parameters for seeking cancellation of bail are more stringent and different from the parameters which were required to be taken into consideration at the time of grant of bail to accused

High Court declined to interfere in the bail order passed by Trial Court as otherwise case of the accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 of Cr.P.C.

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendant-company was proceeded ex parte whereafter it filed application under S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of proceedings in presence of an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties

Contention of the defendant was that the agreement between the parties stipulated that all disputes be referred to arbitration, therefore, proceedings of the suit should be stayed

Validity

Defendant, in the application had only relied upon the clause of the agreement which contained general terms and conditions but failed to point out any dispute

Dishonouring of cheque was an independent cause of action and S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 did not apply to stay the suit

Neither the issuance of the cheque was disputed nor its dishonouring and mere dishonouring of cheque due to insufficiency of funds did not create any dispute which was to be resolved through arbitration

When there was no dispute, there could be no arbitration and thus it would be irrational and illogical to stay the proceedings as the dispute was non-existent

Application for stay in proceedings was dismissed, in circumstances.

If of a cheque, was claimed to have been issued without consideration or in the name of some other person, the burden to prove so, lay upon the party so claiming.

Defendant-company was proceeded ex parte whereafter it filed application under S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of proceedings in presence of an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties

Contention of the defendant was that the agreement between the parties stipulated that all disputes be referred to arbitration, therefore, proceedings of the suit should be stayed

Validity

Defendant, in the application had only relied upon the clause of the agreement which contained general terms and conditions but failed to point out any dispute

Dishonouring of cheque was an independent cause of action and section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 did not apply to stay the suit

Neither the issuance of the cheque was disputed nor its dishonouring and mere dishonouring of cheque due to insufficiency of funds did not create any dispute which was to be resolved through arbitration

When there was no dispute, there could be no arbitration and thus it would be irrational and illogical to stay the proceedings as the dispute was non-existent

Application for stay in proceedings was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner sought quashing of F.I.R. filed against him on the ground that since dispute was between a Financial Institution and customer, therefore, the sole jurisdiction in the matter vested with the Banking Court under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 being a special enactment had an overriding effect on ordinary law, therefore, the petitioner could not be proceeded with under provisions of the P.P.C. and only remedy available for the Financial Institution was to invoke provisions of S.20 of the Ordinance by filing a direct complaint under S.7(1)(b) of the Ordinance

Prosecution of the petitioner under S.489-F, P.P.C. was an abuse of the process of the court and was without lawful authority

Financial Institution was debarred from taking advantage of S.489-F, P.P.C.

F.I.R. against the petition was quashed, in circumstances.

Petitioner sought quashing of F.I.R. filed against him on the ground that since dispute was between a Financial Institution and customer, therefore, the sole jurisdiction in the matter vested with the Banking Court under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 being a special enactment had an overriding effect on ordinary law, therefore, the petitioner could not be proceeded with under provisions of the P.P.C. and only remedy available for the Financial Institution was to invoke provisions of S. 20 of the Ordinance by filing a direct complaint under S. 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance

Prosecution of the petitioner under S. 489-F, P.P.C. was an abuse of the process of the court and was without lawful authority

Financial Institution was debarred from taking advantage of S. 489-F, P.P.C.

F.I.R. against the petitioner was quashed, in circumstances.

Alleged offence did not attract the prohibition contained in S.497(1), Cr.P.C.-Pendency or involvement of accused in other cases of the type, could not be a clog in the way of extension of relief of bail to accused

Case for enlargement on bail having been made out, accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and carried a maximum punishment of three years

Investigation of the case was complete and accused was no more required by the Police authorities for the purpose of investigation

Trial Court while refusing to grant bail had observed that accused was an ailing person who needed medical treatment

Medical report revealed that accused "needed management from Gastroenterologist"

Grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years was a rule and refusal an exception

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Car in question was purchased by the petitioner/accused from the complainant and instead of making payment of the consideration amount, he issued the cheques in questioning the name of the complainant knowing that he did not have sufficient funds to meet with the face value of the same

If an offender dishonestly issued cheque towards repayment of loan; or fulfilment of a legal obligation knowingly; that it would be bounced on presentation, would be deemed to have committed an offence within the scope of S.489-F, P.P.C.

If accused would adopt the plea that he had sufficient funds for encashment of the cheque issued by him, the burden to prove the same would be upon accused

Cheques in question had been bounced mainly for the reason that the funds in the relevant account were not sufficient

Having dishonestly issued the cheques in regular intervals with mala fide intention; and being in knowledge that sufficient funds were not available, accused had proved himself to be a habitual offender

Contention of counsel for accused was that offence against accused being punishable with imprisonment of three years, same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.; and should be deemed as a bailable offence as in such like offences, the grant of bail was a rule and rejection thereof an exception

Said contention could not be entertained

Prosecution case against accused brimmed with incriminating connecting evidence; and he had committed a non-bailable offence falling outside the scope of further inquiry as contemplated under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was declined.

Counsel for accused admitted that a compromise between the parties had taken place and in view of the same pre-arrest bail of accused was confirmed

Counsel had further admitted that both the cheques given to the complainant, had been dishonoured and pre-arrest bail so granted to accused had also been recalled

Counsel for accused was unable to explain about four years' absconsion of accused

Though case against accused did not' fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., and accused was behind the bars for a considerable long period; and bail in such like case was a rule and refusal was an exception, but conduct of accused clearly reflected that he had misused the relief of bail earlier granted to him as his cheques given to the complainant had been dishonoured and he remained fugitive from law for about four years

Such was sufficient to make case of accused an exception to the general rule and that disentitled him for any discretionary relief in his favour

Bail petition filed by accused being devoid of any force, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record did not transpire that any business relation or any dispute existed between the brothers in respect of any property; or the cheques were issued as security; or in trust and were not to be encashed until the sale of some plots

Prima facie the cheques in question were allegedly issued to the complainant in settlement of the loan

Cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient funds and not for any other reason; and if it was given in trust, then accused had failed to give any plausible reason or to disclose or inform the complainant or the bank not to encash the said cheque on the due date

Accused had also failed to show any mala fide on the part of the complainant as well as on the investigating agency

Delay in lodging the F.I.R. could be for the reason to give a last opportunity to accused for payment of the due amount

Question of lodging of F.I.R. by the attorney of the complainant, was devoid of any force, in view of settled proposition that every member of the public had a right to set the wheel of criminal prosecution in motion; and there was no embargo for any person to lodge a complaint or to be personally aggrieved

Prima facie matter did not fall within the provisions of further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P. C., as the offence was complete on the dishonouring of the said cheque

Mere non-witnessing of the Iqrarnama by itself could not be considered as ground for granting bail to accused

Complainant had no mala fide intention to falsely implicate accused in the cases and prima facie accused had failed to show that the cheque was not dishonestly issued for payment of any loan or obligation

Accused having not made out a case for confirmation of the pre-arrest bail, pre-arrest bail granted to accused vide earlier order, was recalled and consequently bail application stood dismissed.

Cheque issued by accused to the complainant having been dishonoured due to insufficient funds, complainant had lodged F.I.R. against accused under S.489-F, P.P.C.; however accused was acquitted under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.

Validity

Dispute between the parties was in respect of property

Complainant, in his statement under S.154, Cr.P.C. had not stated reason for which the cheque had been issued and had admitted that he had received a pay order in lieu of the cheque in question

Complainant, therefore, did not have any case to complain

Held, it was not every instance of a cheque being dishonoured which could attract penal consequences of provision of S.489-F, P.P.C.; only when a cheque was issued towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation; and if such cheque was dishonoured on presentation, would attract consequences envisaged by S.489-F, P.P.C.

In the present case, cheque was issued because accused had received money from the complainant and complainant received back the amount of cheque over and above; there was no repayment of loan and no fulfilment of an obligation any more

In any case provisions of S.489-F, P.P.C. could not be attracted to the case against accused

No ground for interference with the order passed by court below had been made out, in circumstances.

Defence of accused was that disputed cheques were stolen and in that behalf accused had already reported the matter to the bank concerned

Each cheque bore two signatures of accused, one under the figure of amount and other under cross "//"

Cheques in question were crossed-cheques favouring the complainant, not only filled by accused but signed on two places

Contention that cheques in question were stolen or lost, did not appeal to mind

No doubt, accused was charged under S.489-F, P.P.C., which offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C., but it was not a rule of universal application

Each case had to be seen through its facts and circumstances

Grant of bail, no doubt was a discretion granted to court, but the exercise of the same could not be arbitrary, fanciful or perverse

Fugitive from law would lose some of his legal rights

Accused remained absconder for long six years, having caused not only financial loss, but mental and psychological agony to the complainant and his family

Long abscondence of accused also had disentitled him to the concession of bail

Bail cancellation application was allowed and impugned bail granting order was set aside.

Dishonoured cheque was not issued dishonestly by accused nor to repay a loan, but it was issued to cover a potential uncertain liability

Entire amount of dishonoured cheque was fully secured and a commercial dispute was pending between the parties on the liability under the said cheque

Held, coercive arm of law should await the outcome of that commercial dispute, rather than harassing accused

Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.

Three cheques referred in the F.I.X. were issued on 4-11-2006, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 2-4-2010, after about 3-1/2 years

No plausible explanation was forthcoming for said inordinate delay

Record had revealed that cheques were dishonoured for the reason that rubber stamp of the company was not affixed and not for the reason of insufficient funds in the account of accused

Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and it carried a maximum punishment of three years

Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, stood confirmed, in circumstances.

Record had shown that impugned order for suspension of arrest of respondent/accused, was issued by the police functionary without having lawful authority, as investigation of the case had never been entrusted to said functionary under Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002

Impugned order passed by police functionary was set aside and Investigating Officer was directed to investigate the case purely on merit.

Four other cases of the same type though were pending against accused, but he was on bail in such cases and no conviction was in any of said cases

Mere pendency of earlier cases against accused was not sufficient to refuse discretionary relief of bail to him

Each criminal case was to be adjudicated in the background of its own facts and circumstances and the facts of two criminal cases seldom coincide

No doubt grant of bail with the court was always discretionary, but was subject to the condition that such exercise must always be judicious and within the frame of well-settled principles

Bail could not be withheld as punishment

Accused having succeeded in making out a case for bail, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Where the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception.

Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases was a rule and refusal an exception

Case of accused having become of bail, he could not be deprived of his liberty simply for the reason that he had remained an absconder

Factum of alleged absondence of accused was not an exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of relief of bail to him

Bail was allowed to accused accordingly.

When case of an accused becomes of bail, then he cannot be deprived of his liberty simply because he had remained an absconder.

Appeal against order of acquittal was filed after about 5 months of passing of the order, whereas same should have been filed within 30 days of impugned order

Presumption of double innocence being available to acquitted accused, in appeal against acquittal, appellant had to explain and give the reasons for each and every day for filing the appeal, if it was time barred while in appeal against conviction, the delay was condoned favourably

Application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 though was moved along with the appeal, but no sound reason had been given for filing the appeal with delay and for condonation of delay

Condonation of delay under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908, otherwise was not available for filing appeal against acquittal under S.417(2-A), Cr. P. C.

Appeal was hopelessly time-barred and no sound ground being available to condone the delay in filing appeal, application for condonation of delay, was dismissed.

Courts while dealing with cases like issuing bounced cheques fraudulently could not remain oblivious of the increasing trend of cheating and fraud with innocent people

Two bounced cheques were issued by accused to the complainant; in such circumstances, allegations made in the F.I.R. could not be readily discarded to accommodate accused to be admitted to pre-arrest bail

Grant of bail in cases where the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. was a rule and refusal was an exception, but when the trend of such crime had increased considerably, accused was not entitled for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.

Application for setting aside ex parte judgment whereby constitutional petition was allowed and order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and order passed by the Rent Controller was restored

Case was not only of misreading of evidence, but was non-reading thereof by the court of first appeal, therefore, constitutional petition was competent

Applicant never pleaded adverse possession

Case of applicant was that she was owner of the property which plea she failed to prove

Case of the petitioner was that there had been long drawn litigation about the suit property amongst the co-owners/co-heirs which started somewhere in the year 1956/1957 and it was not suggested to the petitioner that receiver was still alive and available

Other evidence on record was sufficient to prove the relationship between the parties in the absence of evidence of any title possessory or otherwise of the respondent

Judgment could not be recalled

Application for setting aside the ex parte judgment, was dismissed accordingly.

Rent Controller is not required to adjudicate question of title but he is required to record proper evidence to reach such conclusion.