Back
G. A. SANAP
Uttamchand – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 22/9/2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2005, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant/accused against his conviction and sentence awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court no.4, Yavatmal by the judgment and order dtd. 16/7/2005, for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act" for short). Learned Magistrate, on conviction, had sentenced the accused to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only).
2. Non-applicant no.2 is the original complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had cordial relations with him. The accused was in need of money. On demand of the accused, the complainant paid him Rs.1, 50, 000.00 (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only). The accused on the very same day issued him a cheque bearing No. 252747 dtd. 11/5/2004, drawn on his account maintained with State Bank of India, Wani. The complainant
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 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....
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 issuance of a bounced cheque towards a legally dischargeable debt constitutes an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption in favor of the complainant under Sec....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the importance of proving the contrary to rebut the pres....
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....
The term of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense.
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
