Back
M. B. SNEHALATHA
Adline Pancy Vijayan, W/o. Innas Vijayan – Appellant
Versus
Navas K. C. , S/o. Muhammed – Respondent
ORDER :
M.B. Snehalatha, J.
Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.97/2010 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalpetta. She assails the judgment in Crl.A.No.24/2016 of Sessions Court, Kalpetta by which the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence against her in C.C.No.97/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’).
2. The parties shall be referred to as complainant and accused.
3. The case of the complainant in brief is that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from him in the 1st week of November 2009, agreeing to repay the same within three months. When demanded back the amount, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.5 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, Kainatty Branch. Upon presentation of Ext.P1 cheque, it was returned dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds' and also stating the reason 'drawers signature incomplete'. In spite of receipt of notice dated 27.3.2010, accused failed to pay the amount covered by the cheque. Accused thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.
4. Accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation and denied the borrowal of
The presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, leading to acquittal if the complainant fails to prove a legally enforceable debt.
The main legal point established is the significance of the presumption under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act and the accused's burden to raise a probable defence to rebut the presumption.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the successful rebuttal of the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the failur....
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 presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
In dishonored cheque cases under the N.I. Act, the presumption of debt arises upon dishonor, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption with credible evidence.
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
