Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Kishan Kumar More (HUF) – Appellant
Versus
Amit Manpuria – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.08.2019, passed by the MM 19th court, Calcutta in complaint case no. CS-00113168/2016, in a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short N.I. Act) is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal, preferred under section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the appellant/complainant, shorn of unnecessary details is to the effect that the appellant/complainant herein was approached by the Respondent herein for borrowing a friendly loan to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- . Believing upon the representations made by the respondent herein the appellant agreed to lend him the aforesaid amount at the interest rate of 17% per annum for a period of one year. Subsequently the appellant had issued a cheque to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the respondent and said cheque was encashed on 31.08.2015. Further case of the appellant is that during the course of such period the opposite party herein, towards interest on the aforesaid borrowed sum of money had issued cheques to the tune of Rs. 16,250/- on 01.012.2015, 16,250/- on 29.02.2016, Rs. 7042/- on 29.03.2016 and Rs.
K. N. Beena VS Muniyappan & Anr. - 2001 7 Supreme 810: This case describes a situation where the High Court "erroneously... set aside [the] conviction," indicating that a prior decision (likely referenced or aligned with this case's holding) was treated as bad law by being reversed or corrected on appeal. The language criticizes the High Court's action, upholding the Magistrate's conviction under Section 138/139 NI Act.
M. M. T. C. LTD. VS Medchl Chemicals And Pharma Private LTD. - 2001 8 Supreme 227: States that "the impugned judgment setting aside complaint... is not sustainable in law," indicating reversal of a prior decision and affirmation of the complaint under Section 138 NI Act. This treats the lower court judgment as bad law while upholding Section 138 enforcement.
SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGH VS STATE OF JHARKHAND - 2021 7 Supreme 508: Articulates principles on cheques issued as security (e.g., "cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance"), presented as established holdings without negative treatment indicators.
Maruti Udyog Ltd. VS Narender & others - Dishonour Of Cheque (1998): States a presumption "must be drawn" under Section 139 NI Act "unless the contrary is proved," presented as a binding legal principle without criticism.
I. C. D. S. LTD. VS Beena Shabeer - 2002 6 Supreme 25: Holds that "complaint will lie under Section 138... against surety if... returned for 'insufficient funds'," affirming liability even for security cheques, without negative treatment.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel VS Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel - 2022 8 Supreme 240: Establishes that part payment reduces "legally enforceable debt on date of maturity," presented as a definitive rule without subsequent criticism.
Ramesh Kumar Mehra vs Anand Malviya - 2026 0 Supreme(MP) 16: Contains procedural details ("Statement of the witness/complainant... has been recorded and the documents Exs.P/1 to P/8 have been exhibited") with no indicators of judicial treatment such as followed, overruled, or criticized. Treatment is unclear; appears to be a factual order snippet.
Surinder Kumar Mahajan vs Sardar Baljit Singh - 2026 0 Supreme(Del) 99: Limited to names ("Rakesh KumarMr. N.K. KaushikMr. S.N.") with no substantive legal holding or treatment language. Treatment is entirely ambiguous and unclear.
The issuance of a cheque signifies a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the burden to prove otherwise lies with the accused, not the complainant.
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial; the accused must provide credible evidence to support their defense.
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.
A cheque issued as security does not create criminal liability under Section 138 unless there is a legally enforceable debt at the time of its issuance.
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.
A legally enforceable debt must exist at the time of cheque presentation for liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to arise.
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.
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....
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
