Back
KARDAK ETE
Yashi Yangfo, W/o Shri Chungma Yangfo – Appellant
Versus
Ronmir Yangfo, S/o Shri Ri Yangfo – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Jini, learned Amicus Curiae for the sole respondent.
2. This Criminal appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the impugned judgment & order dated 07.08.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, in CR Case No. 38/2016, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted.
3. The case projected in brief is that the appellant had given a loan amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Thousand) only to the respondent with agreed terms and conditions to return the same with interest at the rate of 10% per month. The said amount was given by one Smti. Kungyam Yangfo, to the respondent on behalf of the appellant. The respondent on 11.05.2016, has issued a cheque bearing No. 756093 to the appellant for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only drawn on State Bank of India, Seppa Branch, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh to discharge the debt liability owed to the appellant being the loan amount with interest at the rate of 4% per month. Accordingly, the appellant presented the s
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 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 a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.
The presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the N.I. Act shifts the burden to the accused to prove non-existence of debt, which was not done in this case.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act obligates the accused to provide credible evidence to rebut the claim of issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt.
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 under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
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
