IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS
Madhu Ram Deka, S/o. Late Haroram Deka – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Rep. By The P.P., Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRANJAL DAS, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Parashar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant.
2. The respondent No. 2 as complainant has filed a complaint petition before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (herein after NI Act), alleging commission of offence under said provision of NI Act, with regard to a cheque dated 14-06-2021, bearing No. 045164 of amount Rs.20,00,000/-, issued by the petitioner/accused.
3. It is stated that the cheque upon being presented, was dishonoured, on the ground of “drawer's signature differs”. It is stated by the respondent No.2/complainant that after following the procedural formalities, the complainant/petitioner was initiated, giving rise to N.I. Case No. 59 of 2021 pending before the learned Additional CJM, Nalbari and at the stage of evidence. In the said proceeding, the complainant filed a petition, invoking the powers under Section 143-A of the NI Act, seeking interim compensation.
4. After hearing the parties, the said petition was allowed by the learned trial court, vide its order dated
Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi
The court held that interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act requires a prima facie case evaluation, leading to the quashing of the trial court's order due to existing disputed facts.
Interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act requires a prima facie evaluation of the merits of the case; if disputes exist regarding cheque validity, compensation should not be granted.
The court affirmed that under Section 143A of the NI Act, the power to award interim compensation is discretionary, requiring evaluation of the merits of the case and the accused's defence.
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.
Interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be ordered after the plea of not guilty is entered, ensuring adherence to the due process in initiating such financi....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid unless a credible defense is presented, and dishonor of a cheque issued as security can lead to conviction un....
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....
Point of Law : There is no reasons to make any interference in the Judgments and Orders passed by the learned Trial Courts.
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 importance of establishing a probable defense to contest the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.