Back
G. A. SANAP
Hasmukh S Dhruv – Appellant
Versus
Manikrao – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard.
2. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 4/1/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant/accused against his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (For short 'the N. I. Act'). Learned Magistrate on conviction had sentenced the applicant/ accused to pay fine of Rs.95, 000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The facts are as follows: In this judgment, the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the complaint. The applicant is the accused and the non-applicant No.1 is the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that on account of his cordial relations with the accused he gave hand loan of Rs.60, 000.00 to the accused. The accused, at that time, issued a cheque bearing No. 506362 dtd. 10/7/2009 of Rs.60, 000.00 drawn on his account maintained with Bank of Baroda, Branch Akola. Despite demand the accused did not repay the loan amount. Comp
The presumption of consideration and the presumption of receipt of a cheque for discharging a debt under Sec. 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act are pivotal in establishing liability in cheque dishonor case....
Dishonour of cheque – Accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
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 presumption of consideration in cheque transactions under the N.I. Act is strong, and the burden lies on the accused to rebut this presumption with credible evidence.
The presumption of a debt under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act is a significant legal principle, which places the burden on the accused to prove the contrary when a cheque is dishonored.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, transferring the burden to the complainant if sufficient evidence creates doubt in the case.
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.
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 court upheld that a dishonored cheque creates a presumption of liability unless adequately rebutted, reinforcing the legal principles under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments 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
