Elements

Offence to constitute dishonest issuance of cheque, foundational elements were (i) the cheque was duly issued, (ii) it was issued with dishonest intent (iii) it was issued towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, and (iv) it was dishonoured on presentation

Absence of even one of said elements would take the case out of ambit of S. 489-F, P.P.C.

The four elements are (1) parties competent to contract, (2) mutual assent, (3) a thing capable of being transferred, and (4) a price in money paid or promise.

Alleged recovery of narcotics, was not made from the direct physical and conscious possession of the accused, but was recovered from the house of acquitted co-accused

Mere presence of accused, would not be sufficient to connect accused with alleged narcotic substance

Prosecution had to prove two elements of possession i.e. (i) corpus, the element of physical control; and (ii) animus or intent with which such control was exercised and not merely the physical presence of accused in the house, the possession could not be inferred

Prosecution had not established connection with the parcel of sample deposited with the office of Chemical Examiner; it was unsafe to base conviction of accused on the basis of testimony of prosecution witnesses which could not be said to be trustworthy on the facts and circumstances of the case

Prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt

Trial Court, was not justified in convicting accused for committing the offence without any legal evidence worthy of credit available on record

Inherent illegality in the matter, being present, conviction of accused could not be upheld

Findings of the Trial Court were set aside

Accused was acquitted of the charge, and was directed to be released, in circumstances.

Basic elements to consider while deciding whether a suit for recovery of damages on basis of malicious prosecution should be accepted or rejected, stated.