Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 5760

AMIT SHARMA
Irshad Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Sukhe Singh @ Mahesh Master – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mohd. Shamikh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S.S. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment discusses that the accused may rebut the presumption under Sections 139 read with 118 NI Act on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) - It outlines the standards and approach of appellate review in appeals against acquittal, including the double presumption in favor of the accused and when interference is warranted. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It emphasizes the need for the complainant to prove the source of funds and existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability; failure to prove funds undermines the presumption. (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the NI Act in an offence under Section 138?

What are the criteria for an appellate court when reviewing an acquittal in a case under Section 138 NI Act?

What must the complainant prove regarding source of funds and existence of a legally enforceable debt to sustain a conviction under Section 138 NI Act?

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. - The present appeal under section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 05.04.2016 in CC No.789/2015 passed by the learned ACMM-Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the respondent herein was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 ('NI Act').

Background

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case, as alleged in the complaint, are as follows:-

i. The appellant and the respondent were already acquainted before the complaint was filed. The respondent used to run a business in property dealing and selling plots in Delhi and Ghaziabad. In the first week of June 2007, the appellant contacted the respondent for the purchase of a plot. A deal was entered into between the parties for the purchase of a plot of land for a sum of Rs. 2,07,500/-.

ii. It is the case of the appellant that he had made payment of the abovementioned amount to the respondent 'all in cash' on three different occasions, i.e., Rs. 1 lakh on 07.06.2007, Rs. 50,000/-on 25.06.2007, Rs. 57,500/- on 07.07.2007. However, after these payme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Del) 5760

AMIT SHARMAIrshad Ahmad – AppellantVersusSukhe Singh @ Mahesh Master – Respondent

What is the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the NI Act in an offence under Section 138?

What are the criteria for an appellate court when reviewing an acquittal in a case under Section 138 NI Act?

What must the complainant prove regarding source of funds and existence of a legally enforceable debt to sustain a conviction under Section 138 NI Act?

Cases Referred (8)

AMIT SHARMA
Irshad Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Sukhe Singh @ Mahesh Master – Respondent