Cheque bouncing

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com) 03 March 2013

Advocate Laxminarain,

How can SC set aside S.315 CrPC ? How can you even think of that ? Is it unltra vires ?

It is plane and simple english that NI Act is a special statue, and it has atleast 3 fictions with respect to CRPC. (it is clearly stated in NI Act, not withstanding what is stated in CrPC... please understand the meaning of this line)

1. Evidence of complainant on affidavit can be taken in absence of accused, that is no need for examination inchief in presence of accused. This is not possible in CrPC.

2. The reverse onus is on accused under S.139, that is accused has to rebut the allegation, it is partly against the laid down law of innocence till proven guilty.

3. Accused cannot give its evidence in the form of affidavit, due to S.145. Honorabel HC felt that accused can give affidavit citing various laws but SC set this order aside and ruled that under special NI act, and plane reading of S.145 does not permit accused to give his evidence in this manner.

So please do not mix up CrPC in vague manner. I am happy that you put in such efforts to counter the argument, this is the only way to learn.

As far as the site is concern, it is my humble request to adminitsrator of site, to monitor the advise given by various people, and act as moderator in critical matters. I still feel you still have a long way to go before you start appreciating the niceties of higher court orders. Read below

This is what High Court stated ciring your find S.315/316 (you did not read beyond this...)

"

5. The High Court then considered the claim of the accused that any

evidence in defence, like the complainant’s evidence, may also be given

on affidavit. It upheld the claim observing as follows:

“….Merely because, section 145(1) does not expressly permit

the accused to do so, does not mean that the Magistrate

cannot allow the accused to give his evidence on affidavit by

applying the same analogy unless there is just and reasonable

ground to refuse such permission. There is no express bar on

the accused to give evidence on affidavit either in the Act or

in the Code………I find no justified reason to refuse

permission to the accused to give his evidence on affidavit

subject to the provisions contained in sections 315 and 316 of

the Code.”

"

And This is how SC overruled above after detailed discussions..

36. In light of the above we have no hesitation in holding that the High

Court was in error in taking the view, that on a request made by the accused

the magistrate may allow him to tender his evidence on affidavit and

consequently, we set aside the direction as contained in sub-paragraph (r) of

33

paragraph 45 of the High Court judgment.

"

THE PROBLEM IS TO KEEP YOUR ARGUMENT YOU HAVE CLOSED YOURSELF IN NOT UNLEARNING WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW. TO LEARN MORE SOMETIME YOU HAVE TO UNLEARN ALSO.

LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate. ( solve problems in criminal cases. lawproblems@gmail.com) 04 March 2013

As far as the site is concern, it is my humble request to adminitsrator of site, to monitor the advise given by various people, and act as moderator in critical matters. I still feel you still have a long way to go before you start appreciating the niceties of higher court orders.

Your statement is applicable to you only since read what you are criticing = follwoing statement.

=Accused can not give evidence on affadavit does not mean the accused can not give evidence at all..

LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate. ( solve problems in criminal cases. lawproblems@gmail.com) 04 March 2013

Originally posted by : R Trivedi
	1. Accused cannot examine himself under oath in complaint under S.138 of NI Act,

Read your own infput.

It seems no actual experience in courts. Just praching others on sites like this.

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com) 04 March 2013

In one of the last mails you irrtated by arguing on aplicability of S.20 on blank cheques, with respect to absolute right... then you went silent.

Now you are continueing arguing with absurd point that S.315 is not set aside by SC. Why do'nt you read what SC said in the above order about accused defense. Take the help of your seniors.

And as far as the courts are concerened ignorant people like you are letting the court:

1. Not examining the complaint with respect applicability of S.138

2. carry out the examination in chief of complainant.

3. All the Cases are happening as normal trial, not as summary trial

4. Accepting the affidavit of accused.

5. Allowing the complainant to give evidence of substitute complainant even after summoning of accused.

6. Issueing NBWs to accused for single absence while giving many many adjournments to complainant.

Bring these facts to the notice of courts, they will follow what is said by SC.

Since you refuse to learn beyond a certain point, in future I have decided not to respond to any irksome post by you. You have gotten a bad habit arguing for the sake of argument.

LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate. ( solve problems in criminal cases. lawproblems@gmail.com) 04 March 2013

People like with your IMMATURITY or bent on spoiling this site.

I have sent your ARROGANT inputs on time to time to administration.

But now on this site large no of people are here to satisfy their ego and in the process ABUSE others.

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com) 05 March 2013

Great !!

1. S.313 CrPC is a statement of accused, cannot be taken on oath, but a rightful process.

2. S.315 CrPC lets accused to give statement on oath.

(This is risky because it exposes accused to cross)

HC citing S.315 CrPC, allowed accused to give evidence on affidavit, SC over ruled this.

a. You are at liberty to do whatever you want with your clients.

In this post, your contribution started with a irritating post on my response to advocate maru's point of view, that is bad manners, and on top of that you were exhorting some other advocate to do so and so. Pl focus on law and learn.