Back
P. G. AJITHKUMAR
Abdul Rasheed E. K. , S/o. Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Koya, S/o. Melepulparambil Aboobacker – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(P.G. Ajithkumar, J.)
This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.106 of 2004 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thamarassery. As per the judgment dated 31.10.2005, the 1st respondent-accused was acquitted. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal.
2. The appellant filed the complaint with the following allegations:
In November 2003, the 1st respondent availed a loan of Rs.70,000/- from the appellant. The amount of debt was agreed to be repaid on 20.12.2003. At the time of borrowing, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 cheque which was dated 20.12.2003. When the cheque was presented for encasement, it was returned unpaid for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. A demand notice was issued. The 1st respondent evaded the notice. The amount due under the cheque remained unpaid.
3. The 1st respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate and denied the accusation. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts. P1 to P6. After closing the prosecution evidence, the 1st accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code. He denied the inc
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to prove otherwise, particularly regarding the service of demand notice.
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.
The burden of proof shifts to the complainant once the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebutted by the accused.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the complainant, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption of debt, which he failed to do.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharge of a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted if the accused proves non-receipt of the demand notice, which is essential for prosecution under Secti....
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....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that once a cheque's execution is admitted, it is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt, and the burden to rebut t....
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
