Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MITALI THAKURIA
Tapadhir Kanti Das S/o Lt. Sirish Chandre Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. This application is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Crl. Appeal Case No. 40/2018. The Judgment affirmed and upheld the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar in N.I. Case No. 78/2010, which was registered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The order established the petitioner's guilt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only, including a lump sum interest amount, payable to the complainant/respondent No.2. In default of payment, the petitioner is liable to undergo 6(six) months of rigorous imprisonment.
3. The brief facts of the case are as f
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the petitioner's burden to rebut the presumption of liability, which he failed to do.
Criminal Law - Dishonoured of Cheque - Appeal against conviction - Petitioner in this case, did not raise any probable defence which would create doubts in mind of Court. Court find no reason to inte....
The burden of proof under Section 138 of the NI Act lies on the accused to establish a probable defense against established presumption of debt when signatures on cheques are admitted.
The court confirmed that presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act applies, shifting the burden of proof to the accused in a cheque dishonor case, with concurrent findings of fact upheld....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act is strong and requires evidence to the contrary by the accused, which was not provided.
The drawer of a cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act bears the burden to rebut the presumption of liability; failure to do so can result in conviction for cheque dishonour.
A cheque issued for repayment establishes liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused, who failed to provide sufficient evidenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section-139 of the N.I. Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption.
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
