Back
J. M. KHAZI
Charles Harry – Appellant
Versus
Praveen Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. In these appeals, complainant has challenged the acquittal of respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act').
2. In Crl.A.Nos.280/2012 and 281/2012, challenge is to the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused, whereas in Crl.A.No.862/2012, challenge is to the order of the Sessions Court, which reversed the conviction of respondent/accused and acquitted him.
3. For the sake of convenience, in these appeals, the appellant is referred to as complainant and respondents are referred to by their names prefixed by the term accused.
4. The complainant prosecuted these accused in C.C.Nos.6595/2009, 6596/2009 and 6597/2009. Accused Priya Jain and accused-Santosh Kumar Jain are the wife and father of accused Praveen Jain.
5. Since complainant is common, the accused are related to each other and the cheques are allegedly issued by accused towards repayment of loan borrowed by accused-Praveen Jain and involve common discussions, these appeals are clubbed and disposal of by common order.
6. It is the case of the complainant that he and accused Praveen Jain are friends.
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act can be rebutted by the accused demonstrating the lack of a legally recoverable debt, shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove th....
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Dishonor of cheque - Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act rebutted on preponderance of probabilities where cross-examination shows complainant's lack of financial capacity as housewife with unproven remitt....
Cheque for time-barred debt not liable under Section 138 NI Act; Sections 118/139 presumption rebutted by prior stop payment on lost cheque and lack of financial capacity proof; acquittal interferenc....
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument 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
