Back
SOPHY THOMAS
P. K. Uthuppu – Appellant
Versus
N. J. Varghese, S/o. Joseph – Respondent
ORDER :
This revision is at the instance of the accused in CC No.717 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothamangalam, assailing the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.213 of 2009 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, which upheld his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the N.I Act'), though the substantive sentence was reduced to one day till rising of court without altering the fine amount.
2. CC No.717 of 2006 was based on a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, against the revision petitioner, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. His case was that, the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.4 lakh from him on 27.09.2006, and towards discharge of that debt, he issued Ext.P1 cheque on 13.10.2006, assuring him that there would have been sufficient funds in his bank account to honour the same. Accordingly, the 1st respondent presented that cheque before the drawee bank, but it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and it was returned to the 1st respondent along with a memo dated 17.10.2006. He sent lawyer notice to the revision petitioner in the
(1) Revisional jurisdiction – Limited power under revisional jurisdiction is to do justice in accordance with principles of criminal jurisprudence and it would not be appropriate for High Court to re....
The presumption favoring the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act remains unless disproven by the accused.
A signed blank cheque, validly handed over by the accused, attracts the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless the accused provides evidence to the contrary. The burd....
Signature admission on cheque raises presumption of debt under NI Act; accused must rebut by preponderance even if blank security cheque; revisional jurisdiction limited, upholds concurrent findings ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption of liability on the drawer of a cheque under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the accused must provide evidence ....
The court's revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence, reinforcing the presumption of debt under S.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceabl....
Admission of cheque triggers presumption of debt under NI Act Sections 118(a), 139; security cheques attract Section 138 if liability exists; rebuttal by preponderance needed, not mere denial; revisi....
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
