Back
Vibin Meleppuram – Appellant
Versus
Denny Thomas – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.4042 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakkdy. He was convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I.Act). His appeal before the Sessions Court, Thrissur was dismissed. Hence, he filed this Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The 1st respondent filed a complaint alleging that in discharge of the money due from the petitioner, he had issued a cheque for Rs.24 lakhs to the 1st respondent on 24.03.2015. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. A demand notice was sent and inspite of receipt of the same, the money due under the cheque as not paid.
4. The accusation was denied by the petitioner. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked by the 1st respondent to prove his case. Ext.X1 was also brought in evidence. During the
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands unless effectively rebutted by the accused with substantive evidence.
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.
(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....
When a complainant discharges their initial burden under Sections 138 and 139 of N.I. Act, presumptions in their favor come into play, which can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities.
To convict under Section 138 of the NI Act, it is essential to establish the signature and due execution of the cheque, with the burden resting on the accused to disprove after admission.
The court confirmed that a cheque’s due execution and the existence of a legally enforceable debt must be proven, and a mere claim of handing over a blank cheque is insufficient to obviate liability.
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 presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is established upon admission of cheque issuance, and the accused bears the burden to rebut this presumption with cred....
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of a request for expert opinion on signatures, affirming that an admission of signature does not suffice to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the....
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
