Back
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Ammar Ahmad Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner, by way of present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.'), impugns the order dated 20.09.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-1, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision No. 383/2018 vide which the summoning order dated 13.04.2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01, NI Act, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in CC No. 4617/2018 was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act') by respondent no. 2/complainant alleging that the petitioner had been known to the complainant for last three years and had approached him in the month of July, 2017 intending to purchase a property where he was already residing at New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The complainant had arranged Rs. 50 lakhs as sought by the petitioner and had advanced Rs. 50 lakhs on 07.09.2017 to the petitioner on the assurance that money will be returned immediately when his house loan is sanctioned and even if the house loan was not sanctioned, he had undertaken to return the s
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding legally enforceable debt is rebuttable; the failure to prove such debt leads to liability under Section 138.
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 legally recoverable debt under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act requires the accused to rebut it with evidence, which was not done in this case.
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 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.
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Dishonour of cheque – Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 Constitution of India is requires to be exercised in circumspection and sparingly.
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
