Author: Advocate Paresh M Modi

As a law firm, Advocate Paresh M Modi is having a team of expert Advocates who provide expert advice and guide the clients on the complicated issues of court proceedings in India. Our law firm has been advising clients to adopt a systematic approach as per the provisions of the law and the requirements of the statute. Being the Best Advocate in Ahmedabad, Advocate Paresh M Modi has been serving the clients according to the provisions of law as Advocate Paresh M Modi is an Experienced Lawyer in Gujarat.Paresh M Modi and his associates have been rendering excellent work owing to their experience in Gujarat High Court for more than 7 years together and having established themselves as a seasoned advocate in the High Court of Gujarat by dealing with various matters in a different fields. It has been made possible to see that the client in any corner of the State of Gujarat could get genuine legal advice and the presence of a lawyer on account of the association with Advocates in various cities of the State of Gujarat.

Categories Cheque Bounce Lawyer, Criminal Cases, Criminal Lawyer

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 : Section 141

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 141 – Liability of vicarious na-ture-Burden of proof lies on appellant-Onus has to be discharged by good evidence, High Court committed error in discharging liability-Whether or not they were partners in firm is a fact, to be established in trial-Initial burden by way of averment has been made by appellant.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ ૧૮૮૧-કલમ ૧૪૧ – પ્રતિનિધક સ્વરૂપની જવાબદારી-અપીલકર્તા પર પુરાવાનો બોજો પડે છે-સારા પુરાવાથી ભાર ઉતારવાનો છે-જવાબદારી રદ કરવામાં હાઇકોર્ટ ભુલ કરી છે-તેઓ પેઢીમાં ભાગીદાર હતા કે નહિ તે એક હકીકત છે-જે ટ્રાયલમાં પુરવાર કરવાની છે-ખાતરીપૂર્વક બોલવાથી શરૂનો બોજો અપીલકર્તા પર છે.

Judgement

Rallis India Ltd v.Poduru Vidya Bhusan, 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 778: 2011 (13) SCC 88: 2011 (3) Supreme 244:2011 (2) Crimes (SC) 177 :2011 (1) Bankmann 617.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 141 – Criminal liability attracted-If accused is able to prove to satisfaction of Court that offence was commited without his Knowledge or he has exercised diligence to prove commission of of-fence he will not be liable to be punished-final judgment would depend on evidence adduced.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ ૧૮૮૧-કલમ ૧૪૧ – કંપનીનો નોન-એકિઝ્કયુટિવ ડિરેકટર-ડિરેકટરની ફરિયાદ કે તેણી ડિરેકટર તરીકે બંધ થઇ ગઇ હોવા છતાં તેને આરોપી તરીકે બોલવવામાં આવે છે-ફરિયાદીએ જુની તારીખના જવાબને ધ્યાનમાં ન લીધો-કાયદાકીય નોટિસમાં એવી સ્પષ્ટ માહિતી સમાવિષ્ટ છે કે તેણીએ એક દિવસ પહેલાં જ રાજીનામું આપ્યું હતું.

Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council, AIR 2012 SC 31:2012 (1) SCC 520:2011 (8) Supreme 1: 2012 CrLJ 625:2011 (12) JT 550:2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 496:2011 (4) Crimes (SC) 281:2011 (2) Bankmann 504.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 141 – Non executive Directors of Company-Girevance of Director that in Spite of assertion that she ceased to be a Director she was arrayed as accused-Complainant did not refer to reply on old date-Reply to statutory notice contains specific information that she had resigned be gone back.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ ૧૮૮૧-કલમ ૧૪૧ – ડાયરેકટરની જવાબદારી-ડાયરેકટરનું રાજીનામું કંપની દ્રારા સ્વીકારાયુ-તેના રાજીનામા સ્વીકાર્યા બાદના વ્યવહાર માટે તે જવાબદાર નથી-શબ્દ ‘કોઇપણ વ્યકિત’-ગુનો થયો ત્યારે તે તારીખે જે વ્યકિત હોય તે જવાબદાર.

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
Categories Criminal Cases, Criminal Lawyer

Section 29 : The Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973

Section 29. Sentences which Magistrates may pass.

(1) The Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.

(2) The Court of a Magistrate of the first class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding five thousand rupees, or of both.

(3) The Court of a Magistrate of the second class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or of both.

(4) The Court of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall have the powers of the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate and that of a Metropolitan Magistrate, the powers of the Court of a Magistrate of the first class.

धारा 29 – दण्डादेश, जो मजिस्ट्रेट दे सकेंगे —

(1) मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट का न्यायालय मृत्यु या आजीवन कारावास या सात वर्ष से अधिक की अवधि के लिए कारावास के दण्डादेश के सिवाय कोई ऐसा दण्डादेश दे सकता है जो विधि द्वारा प्राधिकृत है।

(2) प्रथम वर्ग मजिस्ट्रेट का न्यायालय तीन वर्ष से अनधिक अवधि के लिए कारावास का या दस हजार रुपए से अनधिक जुर्माने का, या दोनों का, दण्डादेश दे सकता है ।

(3) द्वितीय वर्ग मजिस्ट्रेट का न्यायालय एक वर्ष से अनधिक अवधि के लिए कारावास का या पाँच हजार रुपए से अनधिक जुर्माने का, या दोनों का, दण्डादेश दे सकता है।

(4) मुख्य महानगर मजिस्ट्रेट के न्यायालय को मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट के न्यायालय की शक्तियाँ और महानगर मजिस्ट्रेट के न्यायालय को प्रथम वर्ग मजिस्ट्रेट की शक्तियाँ होंगी।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
Categories Criminal Cases, Criminal Lawyer

Section-6 : The Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973

Section-6 Classes of Criminal Courts. – Besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law, other than this Code, there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely;

  1. Courts of Session;
  2. Judicial Magistrate of the first class and, in any Metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrate;
  3. Judicial Magistrate of the second class; and
  4. Executive Magistrates.

धारा 6 -दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता – उच्च न्यायालयों और इस संहिता से भिन्न किसी विधि के अधीन गठित न्यायालयों के अतिरिक्त, प्रत्येक राज्य में निम्नलिखित वर्गों के दण्ड न्यायालय होंगे अर्थात-

  1. सेशन न्यायालय
  2. प्रथम वर्ग न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट और किसी महानगर क्षेत्र में महानगर मजिस्ट्रेट
  3. द्वितीय वर्ग न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट और
  4. कार्यपालक मजिस्ट्रेट

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
Categories Cheque Bounce Lawyer

Defence which may not be allowed in any prosecution under section 138

Section:- 140. Defence which may not be allowed in any prosecution under section 138:

It Shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under section 138 that the drawer had no reason to believe when he issued the cheque that the cheque may be dishonoured on Presentment for the reasons stated in that section. cheque may be dishonoured on presentment for the reasons stated in that section.

Section:- 141. Offences by companies:

(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, Shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be Proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his Knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence:

Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or state Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be Proceeded against and punished accordingly.

કલમ-૧૪૦. કલમ-૧૩૮ હેઠળની કોઇ ફરિયાદ માંડવામાં બચાવ કરવાની છૂટ આપી શકાશે નહી:

ચેક આપવામાં આવ્યો ત્યારે કલમ-૧૩૮ માં જણાવેલ કારણોસર ચેક રજૂ કરવામાં આવ્યેથી તે સ્વીકારી શકાશે નહી તેવુ ચેક લખનારને માનવાને કોઇ કારણ નહોતું તેવુ તે કલમ હેઠળના ગુના માટેના ફોજદારી કામમાં બચાવ લઇ શકાશે નહીં.

કલમ-૧૪૧. કંપનીઓએ કરેલ ગુનાઓ:

(૧) આ કાયદાની કલમ- ૧૩૮ હેઠળ ગુનો કરનાર વ્યકિત જયારે કોઇ કંપની હોય તો ગુનો કરવામાં આવ્યો તે વખતે કંપનીના કાર્ય સંચાલન માટે કંપનીનો હવાલો ધરાવતી હતી અને કંપનીને જવાબદાર હતી તેવી દરેક વ્યકિત તેમજ કંપની તે ગુના માટે દોષિત છે એમ માનવામાં આવશે અને તેમની સામે કાર્યવાહી કરી શકાશે અને તે અનુસાર તેમને શિક્ષા પણ કરી શકાશે.

પરંતુ એવી વ્યકિત એમ સાબિત કરે કે તે ગુનો તેની જાણ બહાર થયો હતો અથવા તે ગુનો અટકાવવા માટે તેણે તમામ યોગ્ય સાવધાની રાખી હતી તે વ્યકિત આ પેટા કલમના કોઇપણ મજકુરથી આ અધિનિયમમાં ઠરાવેલ કોઇપણ શિક્ષાને પાત્ર ઠરશે નહી.

વધુમાં એવી જોગવાઇ કરવામાં આવી છે કે જયારે વ્યકિતને કંપપીના ડયરેકટર તરીકે કેંદ્ર સરકાર અથવા રાજય સરકાર અથવા કેંદ્ર સરકારના અથવા યથાપ્રસંગ રાજય સરકારની માલિકીના અથવા નિંયત્રણ હેઠળના નાણાંકીય કોરપોરેશનમાં કોઇ હોદો અથવા નોકરી પોતે ધરાવતી હોવાની રૂએ કંપનીના ડાયરેકટર તરીકે કોઇપણ વ્યકિતની નિમણૂક કરી હોય ત્યારે તે આ પ્રકરણ હેઠળ ગુનાની કાર્યવાહી માટે જવાબદાર થશે નહીં.

(૨) પેટા-કલમ (૧) માં ગમે તે મજકુર હોય તેમ છ્તા આ કાયદા હેઠળનો કોઇ ગુનો કંપનીએ કર્યો અને તે ગુનો કંપનીના કોઇ ડાયરેકટર, મેનેજર, સેક્રેટરી અથવા અન્ય અધિકારીની સંમતિથી અથવા તેની મૂક-સંમતિથી કરવામાં આવ્યો હોય અથવા તેમના તરફથી થયેલી બેદરકારીને કારણે થયો હોય એમ સાબિત થાય ત્યારે એવો ડાયરેકટર, મેનેજર, સેક્રેટરી અથવા અધિકારી પણ તે ગુના માટે દોષિત છે એમ ગણાશે. અને તેની સામે કાર્યવાહી કરી શકાશે અને તે અનુસાર તેને શિક્ષા પણ કરવામાં આવશે.

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
Categories Legal Disputes

Section 33 : The Evidence Act 1872

Section 33: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated. — Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:

Provided — that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.

Explanation — A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.

धारा-33: किसी साक्ष्य में कथित तथ्यों की सम्यता को प्रश्चात्वर्ती कार्यवाही मेंसाबित करने के लिए उस साक्ष्य की सुसंगति – वह साक्ष्य, जो किसी साक्षी ने किसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही में, या किसी साक्षी ने किसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही में, या विधि द्वारा उसे लेने के लिए प्राधिकृत किसी व्यक्ति के समक्ष दिया है, उन तथ्यों की सत्यता को, जो उस साक्ष्य में कथित है, किसी पश्चातवर्ती न्यायिक कार्यवाहि में या उसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही के आगामी प्रक्रम में साबित करने के प्रयोजन के लिये तब सुसंगत है; जबकि वह साक्षी मर गया है या मिल नहीं सकता है, या वह साक्ष्य देने के लिए असमर्थ है या प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा उसे पहुँच के बाहर कर दिया गया है अथवा यदि उसकी उपस्थिति इतने विलम्ब या व्यय के बिना, जितना कि मामले को परिस्थितियों में न्यायालय अयुक्तियुक्त समझता है, अभिप्राप्त नहीं की जा सकती।

प्ररन्तु वह तब जब कि वह कार्यवाही उन्हीं पक्षकारों या उनके हित प्रतिनिधियों के बीच में थी, प्रथम कार्यवाही में प्रतिपक्षी को प्रतिपरीक्षा का अधिकार और अवसर था, विवाद्य प्रश्न ािर्यवाही में सारतः वही थे जो द्वितीय कार्यवाही में हैं।

स्पष्टीकरण– दाण्डिक विचारण या जांच इस धारा के अर्थ के अन्तर्गत अभियोजक और अभियुक्त के बीच कार्यवाही समझी जायेगी।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
1 2 3 4 5 … 11