Back
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Subrata Mitra – Appellant
Versus
Alpana Das – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated January, 15th 2019 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court in Complaint Case no. 7232 of 2010. By the impugned judgment, learned Court below was pleased to dismiss the complaint and thereby acquitted the accused person under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. in a proceeding under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881(in short N.I. Act).
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant/appellant herein is a government employee under the state of West Bengal and was posted at Malda District Hospital in the year 2007-2008. The accused person/opposite party no.1 herein was colleague of the petitioner herein at Malda District hospital, who asked for some financial help for her personal needs. Pursuant to such request, the appellant herein had extended financial help to the accused/opposite party to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs and the opposite party no.1 accused assured to pay entire due amount by December, 2009. In discharge of her legally enforceable debt and liability, she issued the impugned cheque being no. 989003 dated 26.12.2009 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs drawn
The presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the N.I. Act shifts the burden to the accused to prove non-existence of debt, which was not done in this case.
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 presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act obligates the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt.
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....
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.
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.
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
