Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Anup Agarwala – Appellant
Versus
Piyotosh Biswas – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, Nadia in connection with complaint case no. 386C/2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.
Brief fact of the case
2. The case of the appellant in short is that a complaint was lodged by the present appellant against the present respondent before the Learned Court of ACJM, Tehatta, Nadia to proceed against him under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 14.8.12 alleging dishonour of cheque which was deposited by the complainant as issued by the present respondent on 26.6.12 of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs 2,00,000/-.
3. It is the case of the present appellant that there was a good friendship relation between the complainant/ the appellant and the accused person and at the request of the accused person to give him Rs 3,00,000/- as a loan for his personal necessity on good faith the present appellant agreed to give the amount as loan and he paid the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in presence of witness no 1 and 2. The respondent /accused person assured to re-pay the said a
The issuance of a cheque carries a presumption of consideration, which is rebuttable by the accused. Failure to prove the non-existence of a debt results in liability under Section 138 of the NI Act.
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 main legal point established is that the failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can lead to conviction under Section 138 of the Act.
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 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 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 presumptions under sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act favor the holder, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut the claims of liability.
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
