Back
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Narayan Barman, S/o. Late Lalit Chandra Barman – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Represented By the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.)
1. Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Assam and Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. This application under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C for short) has been preferred by Sri Narayan Barman -petitioner herein challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (M) in Crl. Appeal No. 215/2017 by partly allowing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in C.R. 1966/2010.
3. The genesis of the case was that the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 416097 dated 03.02.2010 for an amount of Rs. 7,10,000/-only drawn on the Panbazar Branch of the State Bank of India allegedly to discharge his liability of a debt. On 19.03.2010, the respondent no. 2 presented the aforementioned cheque in his bank, i.e. the Union Bank of India at G.S. Road, Guwahati, but the cheque was returned due to insufficiency of funds. A demand notice was issued by the
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is mandatory, and the burden to rebut this presumption lies with the accused, who must provide credible evidence to support any claims o....
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 issuance of a cheque carries a presumption of consideration, which is rebuttable by the accused. Failure to prove the non-existence of a debt results in liability under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt is significant; an accused must substantiate any rebuttal with cr....
The accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, failing....
The presumption of issuance under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to prove the contrary if the cheque's signature is admitted, 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
