Back
JOHNSON JOHN
Shailappan – Appellant
Versus
Sabitha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the complainant is against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I Act’ for short).
2. As per the complaint towards discharge of a debt, the accused issued a cheque dated 19.12.2005 for Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused and in spite of issuance of statutory notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.
3. Before the trial court, from the side of the complainant, PW1 examined and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked and from the side of the accused, DW1 examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and hearing both sides, the trial court found that the complainant has not succeeded in proving the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act against the accused and hence, the accused was acquitted.
5. Heard Sri.Abraham.J.Kaniyampady, the learned counsel representing the appellant on record, Sri.Ranjan Suresh, the learned State Brief representing the first respondent/accused and Sri.Alex M.Thomb
Dishonour of cheque – Standard of proof, in order to rebut statutory presumption, can be inferred from materials on record and circumstantial evidence.
The acquittal in a 138 NI Act case can be upheld if the complainant fails to prove the existence of a debt beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
Service of statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is crucial, and failure to prove proper service results in the acquittal of the accused.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's execution is admitted, it is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt, and the burden to rebut t....
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.
Presumption of legally enforceable debt arises upon admission of cheque by the accused; failure to rebut results in liability for cheque dishonor.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, and the requirement for the accused t....
The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act can be rebutted by the accused through evidence demonstrating non-existence of legal debt or liability, relying on preponderance of probab....
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
