Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Narendra Kumar Vyas
Coolage Through Proprietor James K. Wargis S/o Late C.J. Wargis – Appellant
Versus
Anil Refrigeration Work Through Proprietor Suresh Kumar S/o A. Appu Kuttan – Respondent
Order :
(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)
1. The appellant has filed present acquittal appeal under Section 378(4)of the Criminal Procedure Code by which learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 5175 of 2019 has acquitted the accused for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ( in short “the N.I. Act, 1881”).
2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the appellant is running business of Air Conditioners and spare parts. It is also the case of the complainant that accused had purchased spare parts through different invoices for Rs. 10,61,196/- and has given cheques of Rs. 8,20,000/- out of which one cheque bearing No. 490039 of Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn at State Bank of India Branch, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai was dishonored and returned to the appellant with endorsement that the said cheque was dishonored due to “insufficient fund” in the account on 26.06.2019. The complainant has sent legal notice (Exhibit P/3) on 04.07.2019 to accused demanding amount of cheque to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was neither replied nor the amount was given though notice was served upon him, therefore, he has filed an application under Sec
The presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's signature is established, it is presumed to be issued for a debt, shifting the burden to the....
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.
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 presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharge of a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
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 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.
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 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.
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
