Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::open($save_path, $name) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::open(string $path, string $name): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::close() should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::close(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::read($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::read(string $id): string|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::write($session_id, $session_data) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::write(string $id, string $data): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::destroy($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::destroy(string $id): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::gc($maxlifetime) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::gc(int $max_lifetime): int|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
The Supreme Court has observed that a complainant in a cheque bounce case need not prove the 'amount due' as if he is to prove a debt before civil court.
The case of the complainant was that the accused purchased apple crops from him and the accounts were finally settled between him and the authorised agent of accused and a sum of Rs.5,38,856/- was found recoverable. As the cheque bounced, a complaint was filed before the Trial Court.
The Trial Court dismissed the complaint for the reason that cheque amount was more than the amount alleged on the due date when cheque was presented. This finding was arrived by the trial court after seeing contradiction in the number of cartons in the complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant. The High Court upheld the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
In appeal filed by the complainant [Uttam Ram vs. Devinder Singh Hudan], the Apex Court bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed:
Both Courts not only erred in law but also committed perversity when the due amount is said to be disputed only on account of discrepancy in the cartons, packing material or the rate to determine the total liability as if the appellant was proving his debt before the Civil Court. Therefore, it is presumed that the cheques in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques i.e., the appellant received the same in discharge of an existing debt. The onus, thereafter, shifts on the accused appellant to establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption, which onus has not been discharged by the respondent.
.jpg)
.jpg)
