Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Rajani Dubey
Shyam Shrivastava S/o N.L. Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
Vikas Shrivastava S/o Naval Kishore Shrivastava – Respondent
Judgment :
(Rajani Dubey, J.)
1. This acquittal appeal is filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C by the appellant/complainant against the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) in Complaint Case No. 1077/2013, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned trial Court alleging that the respondent is cousin brother and they have joined property situated at Satti Bajar, Raipur. The respondent and his brother Manish Shrivastava, his father Naval Kishore Shrivastava have made false and fabricated documents to sale a big part of joint property and they have succeeded on their conspiracy and sold a part of the property in Rs. 1,10,000,000 (One Crore Ten Lakhs) without any proper partition or any consent of the appellant/applicant. The complainant has lodged an F.I.R against the respondent, his brother and his father under Sections 420, 467, 468,
The court emphasized that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption that cheques are issued for discharging legal liabilities, which the accused must rebut.
The presumption of the existence of a legal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, necessitating the complainant to provide sufficient evidence of such liability.
Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act based on reliable forensic evidence disproving accused's signature on cheque, as presumption under Sections 118 and 139 re....
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 – Accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
The appellate court has the authority to review evidence in acquittal appeals, but must respect the presumption of innocence and ensure that any findings against the accused are based on substantial ....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory, placing the burden on the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to prove non-existence of debt, influencing the court's conviction decision.
The cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused.
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
