Back
G. A. SANAP
Rajesh Bhuleshwarnath Dubey – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Rajaramsing Thakur – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 5/5/2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola, whereby learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the 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) and acquitted him. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, by judgment and order dtd. 7/5/2014, on conviction, had sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2, 80, 000.00 (two lakhs eighty thousand only) and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The facts are as follows:
In this judgment, the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the complaint. The applicant is the original complainant. Non-applicant No.1 is the accused. It is the case of the complainant that he intended to invest his money in real estate. The accused wanted to sell his two shops. The complainant agreed to purchase the two shops of the accused for a total consideration of Rs.5, 01, 000.00. On 3/12/2010, an agreement to sell was executed. The com
The issuance of a cheque and acknowledgment of the debt are sufficient to invoke the presumption of liability under the N.I. Act, and the burden lies on the accused to rebut this presumption with cre....
The presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in rebutting the presumption available to the complainant under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the impact of civil court j....
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
The presumption of dishonor under Section 138 can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove the existence of enforceable debt.
Admission of cheque issuance triggers presumption of debt under NI Act; security cheque liable for existing liability; unlicensed moneylender's NI complaint maintainable; revisional court defers to c....
Admission of cheque execution triggers Sections 118/139 NI Act presumptions of debt; burden on accused to rebut by evidence; trial acquittal ignoring presumption and shifting onus to complainant is p....
It is settled principle of law that cheque issued in respect of uncertain future, liabilities would not attract provision under Section 138 of Act.
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.
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
