Back
V. SRINIVAS
B. Philomina Rani – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
ORDER :
V. Srinivas, J.
Assailing the judgment, dated 16.10.2008, in Crl.A.No.88 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judgment, dated 14.02.2007 in C.C.No.80 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, for the offence punishable under section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “N.I.Act”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 03.06.2016 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1636 of 2016.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that :
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of dishonor of a cheque.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut the presumption once the issuance of the cheque is established.
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.
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut the presumption to avoid conviction under Section 138.
The presumption of debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the complainant, and the accused must rebut this presumption, which was not done in this case.
The presumption of dishonor under Section 138 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut the complainant's evidence, which was not done in this case.
The main legal point established is the significance of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the accused's burden to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption.
Criminal Law - Dishonoured of Cheque - Appeal against conviction - Petitioner in this case, did not raise any probable defence which would create doubts in mind of Court. Court find no reason to inte....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.
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
