Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Rajib Steel Fabrication Bhadhara Krishi Pam Nigam – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Handique S/o Late Malbhog Handique – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.R. Shome, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment and order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Criminal Appeal No.47(4)/2019 affirming the judgment dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar in C.R.(N.I.) Case No.27/2018.
3. In fact, the petitioners were convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. The petitioner No.2 Rajib Gogoi being the proprietor of M/S. Rajiv Steel Fabrication, borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the respondent. On 27.02.2017, the money was paid accordingly.
5. Thereafter, on 15.02.2018, the present petitioner no.2 had issued a cheque bearing No.000759 for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the respondent. The cheque was presented to the Bank and on 17.03.2018, it was dishonoured on the ground “exceeds arrangement”. Therefore, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner no.2 demanding the money. On 10.04.2018, a notice was iss
A cheque issued as security falls under the ambit of Section 138 of the N.I. Act when backed by a legally enforceable debt, notwithstanding claims to the contrary.
A cheque issued as security still constitutes liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and failure to appear in court leads to an adverse inference against the accused.
The presumption of issuance of a cheque for a legally recoverable debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can only be rebutted by the accused through credible evidence, which the petitioner failed to ....
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.
The court reaffirmed statutory presumptions under the NI Act regarding cheque liability, emphasizing the evidentiary burden on the accused.
The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act create a burden on the accused to disprove liability, which was not achieved.
Presumption of debt under the NI Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption.
The presumption of guilt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut it; a failure to do so leads to affirmation of conviction.
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
