Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL
Arun Dashmale, S/o Late Kishan Rao Dashmale – Appellant
Versus
Rambharos Sahu, S/o Shivram Sahu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 15.03.2013 passed by the Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.22/2013, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act, 1881’).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant and the respondent had allegedly entered into an agreement for the purchase of a building developed by the accused/respondent at Kanchan Vihar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur. In pursuance of the said agreement, the respondent is stated to have issued a cheque dated 20.08.2009 for Rs.3,00,000/-, which, upon presentation, was dishonoured with the remark “insufficient funds”. After service of statutory notice and the respondent’s failure to make payment, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, 1881.
3. After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, upon appreciating the entire evidence and material brought on record, convicted the accused/respondent under
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.
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 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 under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, and the accused can rebut the presumption by adducing evidence showing the reasonable ....
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 ....
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 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.
Dishonor of cheque - Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, and the requirement for the accused t....
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
