Back
G. A. SANAP
Balabhau Haribhau Kavanpure – Appellant
Versus
Sai Auto Agencies – Respondent
Key Points: - The court states that presumption under Sec. 118 (consideration) and Sec. 139 (debt/discharge) applies unless the accused proves otherwise; and the burden is on the accused to rebut these presumptions. (!) - The complainant must prove the basic ingredients of Sec. 138 (dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds) with evidence, including acknowledgment of signatures and receipt of demand notice. (!) - The evidence must be sufficient to invoke the presumption under Ss. 118 and 139; in this case, the court found the evidence adequate and upheld conviction. (!) - The court modified the substantive sentence to the period already served, and directed remaining compensation to be paid within two months, with a default of 15 days’ simple imprisonment, and ordered deposit of compensation in trial court. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The revision was dismissed; concurrent findings of fact were upheld. (!) - The accused admitted signature on the cheque and receipt of demand notice, and the court relied on this to consider presumptions and the defense. (!) - The act penalizes dishonor of cheques for insufficient funds; presumption of consideration and receipt of the cheque for discharge of debt are applicable unless rebutted. (!)
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. In this revision, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 10/4/2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant/ accused against his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act" for short), awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Amravati. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati had sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 (Rupees One lakh only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
2. In this judgment, the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the complaint. The applicant is the original accused and the non-applicant is the original complainant. The non-applicant is a partnership firm represented by its partner. It is the case of the complainant that the accused on 10/10/2008 had purchased 'Eicher 485' tractor on credit from the complainant. At the time of delivery of the tractor, the accused had not paid a single pie. Delivery of the t
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 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 under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a significant legal principle, placing the burden on the accused to prove otherwise, which was not met in this....
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 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.
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....
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 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 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....
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
