Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Gayanatha Pandey @ Gayanath Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Appellant herein has challenged the impugned Judgment and order dated 17th January, 2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Court Rampurhat in connection with CR Case no. 502 of 2018, by which the Court below acquitted the Respondent No.2 under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. from the allegation of committing offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short N.I. Act).
2. Factual matrix of the case as stated in the complaint is that the accused/Respondent no. 2 herein, Manik Dutta has issued one cheque being no. 232 dated 18.05.2018 in favour of the appellant/complainant to discharge the legally enforceable debt of Rs. 8.5 lakhs, which amount the accused had taken loan from the complainant for the purpose of his business. When the said cheque was presented before the banker of the complainant, the same was returned as unpaid by the bank with a return memo “stop payment” on 22.06.2018. Complainant /appellant thereafter on 25.06.2018 sent one demand notice against the Respondent no. 2 herein through his Advocate which was duly served upon him. Even after receipt of such demand notice, the Respondent no.2 did not pay t
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments 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.
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
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.
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.
A cheque issued as security does not constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of liability can be rebutted by presenting credible....
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
