Back
T. K. Johnson – Appellant
Versus
P. C. Mathew – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the complaint regarding the cheque. (Para 1) |
| 2. defendant's denial and trial court's findings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments by the parties concerning evidence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. legal principles regarding presumption under ni act. (Para 6) |
| 5. dismissal of the appeal. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
V.G. Arun, J.
1. Appellant is the complainant in S.T. No. 1070 of 2015 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam. The complaint was filed against the 1st respondent, alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegations in the complaint are to the following effect:
The presumption of the existence of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by inconsistencies in the complainant's claims, leading to acquittal of the accused.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, transferring the burden to the complainant if sufficient evidence creates doubt in the case.
The presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused to prove the non-existence of a debt, which was not established in this case.
Point of Law : Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal under - complainant has failed to prove even the execution of the cheque since his very specific case that it was a cheque written using a pen in his pr....
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
The burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the execution of the cheque, especially when the accused denies the transaction.
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts burden to accused to rebut by probable defence; trial court erred in requiring complainant to prove debt, rendering acquittal perverse in appeal.
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
