Back
M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
P. Rasiya – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Nazer – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard Shri Shinoj K. Narayanan, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Shri Mohammad Sadique T.A., learned Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 637, 638 & 639 of 2017, by which the High Court has allowed the said Revision Applications and has acquitted the respondent No.1-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the N.I.Act’) by reversing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, the original Complainant has preferred the present Appeals.
5. The learned trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in each case. The learned trial Court also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. The learned trial Court also further ordered that, if the fine amount is
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 139 – Dishonour of cheque – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a statutory presumption – Once it is presumed that cheque is issued in who....
In a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, once the execution of a cheque is admitted or proven, a presumption under Section 139 arises in favour of the complainant, and the burden shifts to t....
The statutory presumptions under Sections 138, 118, and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are critical in dishonour cases, determining the burden of proof.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and limited to correcting legal improprieties or perversity in findings; it cannot be used to reappreciate evidence where trial and a....
The court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting illegality and perversity; it cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court, and the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the ....
In a Section 138 N.I. Act prosecution, once the execution of a cheque is proven, the statutory presumption under Section 139 shifts the burden to the accused; revisional courts will not interfere wit....
High Courts may not interfere with concurrent factual findings unless there's evidence of perversity; imposing an excessive sentence can be remedied.
The presumption of consideration and liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act is a significant legal principle, which places the burden on the accused to rebut these presumptions in cases....
The court confirmed that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions once the complainant establishes a prima facie case under the N.I. Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
