Back
SUJA BALACHANDRAN W/O BALACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
DIVYA D/O MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. BABU, J.
1. The judgment acquitting the accused in C.C. No. 538 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura, is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The complainant is the appellant. The accused is respondent No. 1. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused alleging that she executed a cheque for Rs.40,00,000/- drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Kidangoor Branch and the same was dishonoured due to insufficient balance. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer’s notice seeking the amount covered by the cheque. The accused reverted by sending a reply stating that she had received an amount of Rs.4,70,600/- from the complainant and she returned the amount with interest. The accused stated in the notice that the pleadings in the lawyer’s notice are false.
3. On the side of the complainant, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. The learned Magistrate, at the close of the trial, found that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The Court found the accused not guilty of t
The presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused through a preponderance of probabilities, shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove the....
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the accused raising a probable defense to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the requirement for the ....
The court upheld the acquittal as the complainant failed to prove the loan's existence or that the cheque was issued for legitimate debt, emphasizing the rebuttable nature of presumptions under the N....
The presumption in favor of the complainant under the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the standard of proof required to prove a defense in a criminal case is preponderance of probabilities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defe....
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
