RETURN OF GOLD AND OTHER COMPENSATION

PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005 - SEC. 12 THE COMPLAINANT FILED PRIVATE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR RETURN OF HER GOLD JEWELERY AND OTHER COMPENSATION EXPENSES ETC., THEY ARE SQUARELY COVERED UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF LAW SINCE THERE IS PRIMA FAICE CASE, IT IS MAINTAINABLE FINALLY THE MAGISTRATE CAN DECIDED WHETHER THE RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED OR NOT=2009[1] A.L.D.Cri.AP 817.

FILLING BALNK CHEQUE -NOT MATERIAL ALTERATION

FILLING UP BLANK CHEQUE ISSUED BY ACCUSED, IS NOT MATERIAL ALTERATION UNDER 20,49,86,87,118,125 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 2009 A.L.D [1] CRIMINAL [DEL. N.O.C.13] 13 :-

SIMULTANEOUS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

WHEN THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF FILING TWO CASES AGAINST THE ACCUSED ON CIVIL SIDE AND CRIMINAL SIDE ON TWO SEPARATED CAUSES OF ACTION, BOTH CASES ARE SIMULTANEOUS MAINTAINABLE2009[1] ALD CRIMINAL SC 599 :-

CHEQUE BOUNCE -BURDEN OF PROOF

2009 A.L.D. [1] CRIMINAL S.C. 468. : SEC.118 AND 139 PRESUMPTIONS ONCE THE EXECUTION OF CHEQUE BY ACCUSED IS PROVED BY THE COMPLAINANT, THE PRESUMPTIONS WOULD SHIFT BURDEN ON THE ACCUSED. THEN THE ACCUSED HAS TO PROVE THE NON PASSING OF CONSIDERATION BY RELYING ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND BY RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.114 OF EVIDENCE ACT AND ALL OTHER MODES HAS TO REBUT THE EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT, THEN THE PRESUMPTIONS UNDER THE ABOVE SECTION DOESNOT COME TO AID OF THE COMPLAINANT AND COMPLAINANT HAS TO POSITIVELY PROVE THE PASSING OF CONSIDERATION . WHEN THE COMPLAINANT CLEARLY STATED THAT FOR SUPPLY OF WOOLEN CARPETS, THE ACCUSED ISSUED TWO CHEQUES, WAS NOT PROVED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND ON THE OTHER HAND BY EXAMINING SALES TAX OFFICER ETC., THE ACCUSED DISPROVED THE SUPPLY OF WOOLEN CARPETS TO THE ACCUSED ON THE ALLEGED DAY. THE DEFENCE THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED AS ADVANCE IS PROBABLE – HENCE THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED FOR ACQUITAL.

CHEQUE DEMAND NOTICE - PLACE OF PAYMENT

. 2009[1] ALD CRIMINAL[BOM.NOC.5] 5 :- IN THE STATUTORY DEMAND NOTICE, THE PLACE OF PAYMENT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. IN THE ABSENCE OF IT , IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT GENERALLY, IT IS DUTY OF ACCUSED TO SEARCH AND FIND AND HAS TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO THE COMPLAINANT,. IN THE NOTICE, THE ADDRESS OF THE COMPLAINANT IS GIVEN. HENCE IT IS SUFFICIENT .