Back
G. A. SANAP
Anil Acharmal Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Manish Pundlikrao Sathe – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard.
2. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 8/6/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Amravati, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant/accused against his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Amravati for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.Act"). Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Amravati on conviction had sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.30, 000.00 to the complainant.
3. The non-applicant is the original complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he had cordial relations with the accused. The accused demanded Rs.28, 000.00 from him. The complainant paid the said amount to the accused. The accused issued a cheque bearing No.024257 of Rs.28, 000.00 drawn on his account maintained with U.T.I. Bank Limited. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason "account closed". The complainant issued notice dtd. 15/12/2008 to the accused
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 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 statutory presumptions under Sections 138, 118, and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are critical in dishonour cases, determining the burden of proof.
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 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....
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....
Under S. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the execution of a cheque is established, a rebuttable presumption of a legally enforceable debt arises, and mere suggestions by the accused witho....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, affirming that a cheque issued for a legally enforceable debt is valid despite a shorter notice period for payment.
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
