Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Nirmal Dutta, Son of Late Manindra Ch. Dutta – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 159/2017 and learned counsel for the respondent in Criminal Revision Petition No. 445/2017. Also heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondents in Criminal Revision Petition No. 159/2017 and learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 445/2017.
2. Since both these revision petitions have arisen out of the original judgment and order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court, i.e., the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, in C.R. Case No. 4047/2011, against which both the complainant as well as the accused have preferred appeals, hence, it is proposed to dispose of both the above-mentioned criminal revision petitions by this common judgment.
3. Criminal Revision Petition No. 159/2017 has been filed by the petitioner, Sri Nirmal Dutta, impugning the judgment and order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2016, whereby the judgment and order, dated 14.12.2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, in C.R. Case No. 4047/2011, by which
Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, affirming that the dishonoured cheque was issued in discharge of a debt, with the accused failing to rebut statutory p....
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the importance of proving the contrary to rebut the pres....
Dishonour of cheque – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal.
It has been settled in law that the accused can either adduce independent evidence or rely on the evidence tendered by the complainant to rebut the presumptions.
The presumption favoring the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act remains unless disproven by the accused.
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
