The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. of XXVI of 1881)

Section 123 (A) (2) (a) provides that once a cheque is crossed as 'account payee' it ceases to be negotiable, but it does not cease to be a negotiable instrument. In other words, an account payee cheque retains its Character, as negotiable instrument and filing of petition of complaint, so far as an account payee cheuqe is concerned, is not barred by Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881………………………………………(13)

The expression “access to be negotiable" only means that the cheque (or the instrument) cannot be transferred to any other person so as to constitute that person (the transferee of the cheque) as the holder. This is clear from the definition of the word 'negotiation’, as given in section 14 of the Act. Crossing of a cheque as account payee does not mean that the right of the payee to collect the amount due under an account-payee cheuqe has ceased. Crossing of cheque simply requires the payee to deposit the account payee cheque in the bank of the payee for collection and that he cannot transfer this cheque to any other persons by negotiation……………………………(14)  

The Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860); section 34

In order to attract the section 34 of the Penal Code, it must be established first that a criminal act has been done by several persons and secondly that all the participants intended that the criminal act should be done and lastly that the criminal act has been done in furtherance of common intention shared by all the offenders……………………(80)

Witness evidence

Mere relationship of the witnesses or relationship with the victim do not make them unreliable or, in other words, their evidence is worthy of consideration. The Court can very much rely on the evidence of a witness who is related to the victim or to other wittiness if the witness is considered by the Court reliable and that evidence of the witness is corroborated by other reliable witnesses who were not related to the victim. .……………………………..(81)

Examination of witness

Mere non examination some of the FIR named witnesses cannot be a manifestation that such witnesses were unwilling to support the prosecution case. The prosecution is not bound to examine all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet inasmuch as it is for the prosecution to decide how many witnesses will examine amongst the cited witnesses for establishing its case against the accused persons.……………………………..(81)

General tendency of the witness

Ad interim bail in Nari-o-Shishu case

In a Nari-o-Shishu case, the victim is not an accused and thus the question of her release or custody was not a matter for determination under section 498 of the Code. Not being an accused charged with commission of any offence she had no scope to seek bail under the provision of sections 496, 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the application for bail under section 498 of the Code cannot be entertained………………………(12)

Custody of a minor in Nari-o-Shishu case

The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 (Act No. 8 of 2003); section 34

Section 34 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 has empowered the Adalat to detain the Judgment-debtors in Civil jail for a maximum period of 6(six) months for the purpose making them com­pelled to pay the decreetal money and the Adalat, after passing order for such Civil imprisonment, can issue warrant of arrest against such Judgment-debtors for making them available for serving out that Civil imprisonment. So, before issuing warrant of arrest the Adalat is to pass specific order of Civil imprisonment for a specific period.………………(10)

At the time of taking loan no promise as to return of money within a specified time was made and no allegation of inducement for getting the loan money from the informant was made. The accused petitioner took the money from the informant as loan for business purpose and, as such, there is no ingredient of entrustment also. In the absence of such definite allegation it cannot be held that taking of money as loan and subsequent failure or refusal by itself shall constitute criminal offence………………………………(9)